Active Topics
-
Porting apps to Leste (32)
to Maemo 7 / Leste by Arno_11 - 4 days, 9 hrs ago -
[ANNOUNCE] CSSU-thumb thread - stable Thumb2 on N900 (2,264)
to Maemo 5 / Fremantle by panjgoori - 6 days, 3 hrs ago - more...
|
2011-11-30
, 14:31
|
|
Posts: 96 |
Thanked: 107 times |
Joined on Aug 2011
|
#832
|
Originally Posted by mmlado
I still don't understand. My script generates a ranking. Why do you think it doesn't?
diff? Sorry, no.
I did it only on Business & Office Category, by hand. So run election for 1 seat, copy the winner. Add winner to the withdrawn list, run the election again.
I think it should give same results as frictional transfer, only we would have ranking.
|
|
2011-11-30
, 14:31
|
|
Posts: 96 |
Thanked: 107 times |
Joined on Aug 2011
|
#833
|
Originally Posted by mmlado
My script does that.
I wanted to say the problem with frictional transfer, and not your script, was that it doesn't give ranking.
I'm trying to find a solution which would use the same algorithm only with ranking.
|
|
2011-11-30
, 14:50
|
|
Posts: 96 |
Thanked: 107 times |
Joined on Aug 2011
|
#835
|
Originally Posted by mmlado
My script uses FTSTV (which is what was used in the last maemo community coucil election, as I understand it) and generates a ranking, yes.
Your script uses fractional transfer?
In that case I'm sorry. I've lost track. You have my support.
| The Following User Says Thank You to neal For This Useful Post: | ||
 |
|
2011-11-30
, 15:13
|
|
Posts: 1,259 |
Thanked: 1,341 times |
Joined on Oct 2009
@ Germany
|
#836
|
I'm really sorry to ask... but if the "fractional transfer" from mmlado and neal does the same but in different ways... why are the results different?
There must be a small mistake in one of those algorithm... or have I overseen something?
Last edited by Helmuth; 2011-11-30 at 15:18. Reason: Added the first sentence - I'm sure I will feel soon sorry about asking such a silly question... ;-)
Originally Posted by neal
MeeGo Coding Competition Business & Office Category
1 MeePasswords http://competition.meetmeego.org/submissions/68
2 LUCID iron http://competition.meetmeego.org/submissions/4
3 ClipMan http://competition.meetmeego.org/submissions/13
4 MeeToDo http://competition.meetmeego.org/submissions/74
5 Wallet http://competition.meetmeego.org/submissions/18
6 NewsG http://competition.meetmeego.org/submissions/76
7 Quick Milk http://competition.meetmeego.org/submissions/78
Originally Posted by mmlado
So, where is the difference if I remove a person after the first run or if I say the person has withdrawn?
We already have a mechanism to remove candidates, by saying they have withdrawn. It's even easier to run my proposal.
Here are the results I got, in less then 5 minutesMeePasswords http://competition.meetmeego.org/submissions/68
ClipMan http://competition.meetmeego.org/submissions/13
Wallet http://competition.meetmeego.org/submissions/18
LUCID iron http://competition.meetmeego.org/submissions/4
MeeToDo http://competition.meetmeego.org/submissions/74:
There must be a small mistake in one of those algorithm... or have I overseen something?
Last edited by Helmuth; 2011-11-30 at 15:18. Reason: Added the first sentence - I'm sure I will feel soon sorry about asking such a silly question... ;-)
| The Following User Says Thank You to Helmuth For This Useful Post: | ||
 |
|
2011-11-30
, 15:31
|
|
Posts: 738 |
Thanked: 983 times |
Joined on Apr 2010
@ London
|
#837
|
Both scripts generate a ranking, both are based on the STV used in the council election, but they are not necessarily equivalent (ie I cannot prove nor disprove it)
By construction, mmlado's method (which is the one I proposed some pages ago, but he has a working implementation) will give a consistent ranking.
Not sure about neals one (ie, can it produce {A}, {A,D}, {A,B,C} out of the A,B, C and D participants?) as far as I know it didn't happen, but I don't know if it can.
Last edited by erendorn; 2011-11-30 at 15:34.
By construction, mmlado's method (which is the one I proposed some pages ago, but he has a working implementation) will give a consistent ranking.
Not sure about neals one (ie, can it produce {A}, {A,D}, {A,B,C} out of the A,B, C and D participants?) as far as I know it didn't happen, but I don't know if it can.
Last edited by erendorn; 2011-11-30 at 15:34.
| The Following User Says Thank You to erendorn For This Useful Post: | ||
|
|
2011-11-30
, 15:32
|
|
Posts: 96 |
Thanked: 107 times |
Joined on Aug 2011
|
#838
|
Originally Posted by Helmuth
Good point. It would be good if mmlado would indicate exactly how he came up with his results (preferably with a script so it is easy to reproduce and debug).
I'm really sorry to ask... but if the "fractional transfer" from mmlado and neal does the same but in different ways... why are the results different?
So, where is the difference if I remove a person after the first run or if I say the person has withdrawn?
There must be a small mistake in one of those algorithm... or have I overseen something?
Thanks.
| The Following User Says Thank You to neal For This Useful Post: | ||
|
|
2011-11-30
, 15:34
|
|
Posts: 193 |
Thanked: 201 times |
Joined on Dec 2009
@ Subotica, Serbia
|
#839
|
Originally Posted by Helmuth
Good question. Maybe it's that by withdrawing, usually apps win by reaching the threshold and not by elimination.
I'm really sorry to ask... but if the "fractional transfer" from mmlado and neal does the same but in different ways... why are the results different?
So, where is the difference if I remove a person after the first run or if I say the person has withdrawn?
There must be a small mistake in one of those algorithm... or have I overseen something?
As I see it we both get the apps in list that would be returned by FTSTV if we run them for the appropriate number of seats, only the ranking is different. And that can be a big difference for the winners.
| The Following User Says Thank You to mmlado For This Useful Post: | ||
|
|
2011-11-30
, 15:34
|
|
Posts: 456 |
Thanked: 1,580 times |
Joined on Dec 2009
|
#840
|
Originally Posted by Helmuth
As far as I understand, neal's approach does not remove candidates. Instead the process is as follows:
So, where is the difference if I remove a person after the first run or if I say the person has withdrawn?
- Run election for one seat. This one will be the winner. (This step is common for neal's and mmlado's approach). In the example MeePasswords gets chosen and is selected as first.
- Next: run election for two seats. Now MeePasswords and LUCID iron get elected. MeePasswords was already chosen as first place so LUCID iron is chosen for second place.
- Next: run election for three seats. Now MeePasswords, LUCID iron, and ClipMan get elected. MeePasswords and LUCID iron had already been assigned to places 1 and 2 so ClipMan is chosen for place 3.
- etc.
mmlado's approach explicitly eliminates candidates for the next voting run by saying already chosen candidates have withdrawn. I don't know the mechanics/mathematics well enough but the different results are most probably caused by the remaining votes being distributed differently among the remaining candidates as compared to neal's approach.
__________________
MeePasswords --- Q To-Do --- QZeeControl
Advanced Clock Plugin --- Binary Clock, Desktop Version --- libswt-hildon
Stultitia Simplex --- To-Do-O --- VU Meter --- Zeecontrol
My homepage with assorted posts about my apps, Qt/QML, etc.: http://ruedigergad.com
Advanced Clock Plugin --- Binary Clock, Desktop Version --- libswt-hildon
Stultitia Simplex --- To-Do-O --- VU Meter --- Zeecontrol
My homepage with assorted posts about my apps, Qt/QML, etc.: http://ruedigergad.com
I'm trying to find a solution which would use the same algorithm only with ranking.
Demine
PeQersi