Page 84 of 102 « First 748283 84 858694 Last »
Reply
Thread Tools Search this Thread
neal is offline neal
11-30-2011 , 10:31 AM
Posts: 96 | Thanked: 104 times | Joined on Aug 2011
#831
Originally Posted by mmlado View Post
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 Add winner to the withdrawn list, run the election again.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.
I still don't understand. My script generates a ranking. Why do you think it doesn't?
 
neal is offline neal
11-30-2011 , 10:31 AM
Posts: 96 | Thanked: 104 times | Joined on Aug 2011
#832
Originally Posted by mmlado View Post
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.
My script does that.
 
mmlado is offline mmlado
11-30-2011 , 10:40 AM
Posts: 193 | Thanked: 200 times | Joined on Dec 2009 @ Subotica, Serbia
#833
Originally Posted by neal View Post
My script does that.
Your script uses fractional transfer?
In that case I'm sorry. I've lost track. You have my support.
__________________
Demine
PeQersi
 
neal is offline neal
11-30-2011 , 10:50 AM
Posts: 96 | Thanked: 104 times | Joined on Aug 2011
#834
Originally Posted by mmlado View Post
Your script uses fractional transfer?
In that case I'm sorry. I've lost track. You have my support.
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.
 

The Following User Says Thank You to neal For This Useful Post:
Helmuth's Avatar
Helmuth is offline Helmuth
11-30-2011 , 11:13 AM
Posts: 1,258 | Thanked: 1,335 times | Joined on Oct 2009 @ Germany
#835
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?


Originally Posted by neal View Post
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 View Post
We already have a mechanism to remove candidates, by saying they have withdrawn. It's even easier to run my proposal.
MeePasswords 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
Here are the results I got, in less then 5 minutes :
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?
Last edited by Helmuth; 11-30-2011 at 11:18 AM. 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:
erendorn's Avatar
erendorn is offline erendorn
11-30-2011 , 11:31 AM
Posts: 737 | Thanked: 967 times | Joined on Apr 2010 @ London
#836
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; 11-30-2011 at 11:34 AM.
 

The Following User Says Thank You to erendorn For This Useful Post:
neal is offline neal
11-30-2011 , 11:32 AM
Posts: 96 | Thanked: 104 times | Joined on Aug 2011
#837
Originally Posted by Helmuth View Post
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?
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).

Thanks.
 

The Following User Says Thank You to neal For This Useful Post:
mmlado is offline mmlado
11-30-2011 , 11:34 AM
Posts: 193 | Thanked: 200 times | Joined on Dec 2009 @ Subotica, Serbia
#838
Originally Posted by Helmuth View Post
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?
Good question. Maybe it's that by withdrawing, usually apps win by reaching the threshold and not by elimination.

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.
__________________
Demine
PeQersi
 

The Following User Says Thank You to mmlado For This Useful Post:
Wonko is offline Wonko
11-30-2011 , 11:34 AM
Posts: 348 | Thanked: 1,110 times | Joined on Dec 2009
#839
Originally Posted by Helmuth View Post
So, where is the difference if I remove a person after the first run or if I say the person has withdrawn?
As far as I understand, neal's approach does not remove candidates. Instead the process is as follows:
  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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.
  4. 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.
__________________
Advanced Clock Plugin --- Binary Clock, Desktop Version --- libswt-hildon --- MeePasswords
Q To-Do --- QZeeControl --- Stultitia Simplex --- To-Do-O --- VU Meter --- Zeecontrol
My homepage with assorted posts about my apps, Qt/QML, etc.: http://ruedigergad.com
 

The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to Wonko For This Useful Post:
mmlado is offline mmlado
11-30-2011 , 11:40 AM
Posts: 193 | Thanked: 200 times | Joined on Dec 2009 @ Subotica, Serbia
#840
Originally Posted by neal View Post
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).

Thanks.
Sorry, no script. But it can be written.
I run:
Code:
openstv-run-election -s 1 FTSTV election.blt
Copy/paste the winner into a file.
Edit the blt file and add -x, where x is the place of the app in the file, as the second line, to indicate the candidate has withdrawn.

Like:

8 8
-3
1 2 7 4 3 1 6 8 5 0
Run again:
Code:
openstv-run-election -s 1 FTSTV election.blt
8 8
-3 -1
1 2 7 4 3 1 6 8 5 0
Repeat until I don't have enough winners.
__________________
Demine
PeQersi
 

The Following User Says Thank You to mmlado For This Useful Post:
Reply
Page 84 of 102 « First 748283 84 858694 Last »

Tags
coding, community, competition, contest, development, intel, meego, meetmeego, nokia

« Previous Thread | Next Thread »
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

 
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 05:30 PM.

Contact Us - Home - Archive - Top