Re: [s-d] Antonio votes

[Antonio Dolcetta <zagarna@xxxxxxxxx>]

Mark Walsh wrote:
> On: 1/10/06 4:26:08 AM Antonio sent:
> > Subject: Re: [s-d] RE: [s-b] [auto] Antonio votes
> >
> > I'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