voting paradox - определение. Что такое voting paradox
Diclib.com
Словарь ChatGPT
Введите слово или словосочетание на любом языке 👆
Язык:

Перевод и анализ слов искусственным интеллектом ChatGPT

На этой странице Вы можете получить подробный анализ слова или словосочетания, произведенный с помощью лучшей на сегодняшний день технологии искусственного интеллекта:

  • как употребляется слово
  • частота употребления
  • используется оно чаще в устной или письменной речи
  • варианты перевода слова
  • примеры употребления (несколько фраз с переводом)
  • этимология

Что (кто) такое voting paradox - определение

MARQUIS DE CONDORCET'S OBSERVATION REGARDING TIMES WHEN VOTERS' COLLECTIVE PREFERENCES ARE CYCLIC, EVEN WHEN VOTERS' INDIVIDUAL PREFERENCES ARE NOT
Condorcet's paradox; Preference cycling; Condorcet voting paradox; Voting paradoxes; Condorcet's voting paradox; Condorcet axiom; Voting paradox; Condorcet cycle
  • Notice that in Score voting, a voter's power is reduced in certain pairwise matchups relative to Condorcet. This guarantees that a cyclical social preference can never occur.
  • Voters (blue) and candidates (red) plotted in a 2-dimensional preference space. Each voter prefers a closer candidate over a farther. Arrows show the order in which voters prefer the candidates.

Paradox of voting         
LARGER THE ELECTORATE, THE LESS EACH VOTE MATTERS
Downs paradox; Rationality of voting
The paradox of voting, also called Downs' paradox, is that for a rational, self-interested voter, the costs of voting will normally exceed the expected benefits. Because the chance of exercising the pivotal vote is minuscule compared to any realistic estimate of the private individual benefits of the different possible outcomes, the expected benefits of voting are less than the costs.
Condorcet paradox         
The Condorcet paradox (also known as the voting paradox or the paradox of voting) in social choice theory is a situation noted by the Marquis de Condorcet in the late 18th century, in which collective preferences can be cyclic, even if the preferences of individual voters are not cyclic. This is paradoxical, because it means that majority wishes can be in conflict with each other: Suppose majorities prefer, for example, candidate A over B, B over C, and yet C over A.
D'Alembert's paradox         
  • Jean le Rond d'Alembert (1717-1783)
  • Steady and separated incompressible potential flow around a plate in two dimensions,<ref>Batchelor (2000), p. 499, eq. (6.13.12).</ref> with a constant pressure along the two free streamlines separating from the plate edges.
  • wake]],<br>
•5: post-critical separated flow, with a turbulent boundary layer.
  • Pressure distribution for the flow around a circular cylinder. The dashed blue line is the pressure distribution according to [[potential flow]] theory, resulting in d'Alembert's paradox. The solid blue line is the mean pressure distribution as found in experiments at high [[Reynolds number]]s. The pressure is the radial distance from the cylinder surface; a positive pressure (overpressure) is inside the cylinder, towards the centre, while a negative pressure (underpressure) is drawn outside the cylinder.
  • circular]] cylinder in a uniform onflow.
THE THEOREM THAT, FOR INCOMPRESSIBLE AND INVISCID POTENTIAL FLOW, THE DRAG FORCE IS 0 ON A BODY MOVING WITH CONSTANT VELOCITY RELATIVE TO THE FLUID, IN CONTRADICTION TO REAL LIFE, WHERE VISCOSITY CAUSES SUBSTANTIAL DRAG, ESPECIALLY AT HIGH VELOCITIES
D'Alembert's Paradox; D'Alembert paradox; Hydrodynamic paradox; D'Alembert Paradox; D'Alemberts Paradox; D'Alemberts' Paradox; Dalembert's Paradox; Hydrodynamical paradox; Hydrodynamics paradox; D'alembert's Paradox
In fluid dynamics, d'Alembert's paradox (or the hydrodynamic paradox) is a contradiction reached in 1752 by French mathematician Jean le Rond d'Alembert.Jean le Rond d'Alembert (1752).

Википедия

Condorcet paradox

The Condorcet paradox (also known as the voting paradox or the paradox of voting) in social choice theory is a situation noted by the Marquis de Condorcet in the late 18th century, in which collective preferences can be cyclic, even if the preferences of individual voters are not cyclic. This is paradoxical, because it means that majority wishes can be in conflict with each other: Suppose majorities prefer, for example, candidate A over B, B over C, and yet C over A. When this occurs, it is because the conflicting majorities are each made up of different groups of individuals.

Thus an expectation that transitivity on the part of all individuals' preferences should result in transitivity of societal preferences is an example of a fallacy of composition.

The paradox was independently discovered by Lewis Carroll and Edward J. Nanson, but its significance was not recognized until popularized by Duncan Black in the 1940s.