• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

'Three Brief Proofs of Arrow's Impossibility Theorem', John Geanakopolis

Doug Huffman

Banned
Joined
Jun 9, 2006
Messages
9,180
Location
Washington Island, across Death's Door, Wisconsin,
imported post

The proof
http://cowles.econ.yale.edu/P/cd/d11a/d1123-r3.pdf

The Wikipedia's synopsis
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arrow%27s_impossibility_theorem

The Wiki's introduction
In social choice theory, Arrow’s impossibility theorem, or Arrow’s paradox, demonstrates that no voting system can convert the ranked preferences of individuals into a community-wide ranking while also meeting a certain set of reasonable criteria with three or more discrete options to choose from. These criteria are called unrestricted domain, non-imposition, non-dictatorship, Pareto efficiency, and independence of irrelevant alternatives. The theorem is often cited in discussions of election theory as it is further interpreted by the Gibbard–Satterthwaite theorem. The theorem is named after economist Kenneth Arrow, who demonstrated the theorem in his Ph.D. thesis and popularized it in his 1951 book Social Choice and Individual Values. The original paper was entitled "A Difficulty in the Concept of Social Welfare".[1] Arrow was a co-recipient of the 1972 Nobel Prize in Economics.
 

Citizen

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Nov 15, 2006
Messages
18,269
Location
Fairfax Co., VA
imported post

Doug,

I don't have my PhD, yet.

Can you break that down for us.

And maybe tie it to OC in accordance with the forum rules.

:)
 

Doug Huffman

Banned
Joined
Jun 9, 2006
Messages
9,180
Location
Washington Island, across Death's Door, Wisconsin,
imported post

I have no intention of defending my decision to bring this to attention. If the owner/mods find it disruptive then poof - sic transit gloria mundi!

I believe worse has been allowed to remain to damage us all. This is entirely uplifting and enlightening to any that will understand it.

In the incoming administration of PEBO we see the effect of democracy's unintended consequences.

General Discussion
Use this area for discussions that are somewhat off-topic or that do not fit anywhere else. Topics should still be related to the focus of the forum and all other rules of behavior still apply here.
 

Hawkflyer

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Feb 21, 2007
Messages
3,309
Location
Prince William County, Virginia, USA
imported post

Citizen wrote:
Doug,

I don't have my PhD, yet.

Can you break that down for us.

And maybe tie it to OC in accordance with the forum rules.

:)

There can never be a pure democracy, because you will never get everyone to agree on what should be done. That disagreement eventually lead to total anarchy. In an anarchical world it is best to go armed.:celebrate

As you can see I too am stumped.
 

Citizen

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Nov 15, 2006
Messages
18,269
Location
Fairfax Co., VA
imported post

Hawkflyer wrote:
SNIP There can never be a pure democracy, because you will never get everyone to agree on what should be done. That disagreement eventually lead to total anarchy.

And we needed ivory-tower PhD's and researchers to tell us that?

I don't know what's scarier. That it highlights the disconnect of academia, or that it indicates what it takes to penetrate their murkiness--convert common-sense to lots of $50-words and arrange it in way that it can't be argued against under their "accepted" rules of engagement. And only then does it get through.

After peer review, of course.
 
Top