|Antonio Dolcetta on Tue, 10 Jan 2006 08:55:01 -0600 (CST)|
[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]
|Re: [s-d] Antonio votes|
Mark Walsh wrote:
On: 1/10/06 4:26:08 AM Antonio sent:Subject: Re: [s-d] RE: [s-b] [auto] Antonio votesI'm sorry, I wasn't trying to say that you want to cheat in the ordering. I'm just saying that your proposal has a loophole in it that permits whoever does the initial ordering to cheat. "Sequentially" is too generic a term, it _may_ mean "in the order you find them" or it may mean "anything is good as long as every item is associated to a number from 1 to X, where X is the number of items, and no items are associated to the same number".For an example it would be perfectly legal IMHO to start with a 1 for Wonko and end with 16 for Antonio.That's kinda how I feel about it too. the initial ordering really doesn't make a difference, as long as it's fixed before the dice.
Agreed.Although I still think that an algorithm that is completely independent of starting order is to be preferred, if only because you get to send one less message to the list (the one in which you declare the starting state).
-- Antonio http://gelo.dolcetta.net _______________________________________________ spoon-discuss mailing list spoon-discuss@xxxxxxxxx http://lists.ellipsis.cx/mailman/listinfo/spoon-discuss