en>Accelerometer: contradiction with ordinal collapsing function

2013-04-22T22:41:11Z

contradiction with ordinal collapsing function

← Older revision		Revision as of 00:41, 23 April 2013
Line 1:		Line 1:
	~~Wiele firmy z pewnością ochoczo ażeby wykorzystało z tego rodzaju posług~~. ~~Wiele figur wyrządza sobie testowanie szlamie owe smakuje~~? ~~Ano wolno zapotrzebować drobne~~, ~~małe usługi za 200~~ - ~~300zł~~, ~~ale taka jednokrotna posługa istnieje nieobcisło błyskotliwa~~. ~~Obawiają się oni jednak wzniosłych kosztów połączonych z pozycjonowaniem oraz podobnym tym przebiegiem~~.<br><br>~~Polska stronica ginie w gąszczu innych stronicy~~ a ~~w pewnym sekundy jej widzialność wygasa~~. ~~Dzięki całkowitemu plikowi działań możemy obwarować sobie widzialność w powierzchni internetowej natomiast naprawdę dobrą promocje~~.<br><br>~~Pozycjonowanie owe obrotny sposób na wypromowanie przebranej strony~~ a ~~realizacji w sieci~~. ~~Czy można zmniejszyć sumpty? Owe nie tylko postępowania pozycjonera~~, ~~webmastera~~, ~~ale również promocja w sieci zaś dobrotliwe opisy na stronie produkowane przez pomysłowego copywritera~~. ~~Tylko wtedy ma owe powód~~ a ~~zapewnia plony~~.<br>~~<br>Warto wyświetlić kilka propozycyj filii interakcyjnych~~, ~~stwierdzić cennik a dostępne portfolio~~. [http://~~tihe~~.us/~~car~~/~~?agencjaseobia_ystok15371 pozycjonowanie Białystok~~] ~~postuluje czasu zaś gigantycznego druku harówy~~. ~~Z tego same jeżeli pożądamy pozostawać spostrzeżeni w sieci musimy ulokować w cały pakiet usługi~~. ~~Efekty są zauważalne, ale widzialne na powierzchni tygodniom, oraz nawet i kilku miesiąców~~.~~<br><br>Pozycjonowanie - rezolutne natomiast błyskotliwe to długotrwały proces~~.		:''Judgment aggregation'' redirects here.

			[[File:Jury international01.jpg\|thumb\|right\|160px\|It is one thing to ask a group to vote on each part of a plan, and another thing to vote on the whole plan itself (because people may have different worries, and a simple vote does not capture those differences)]]

			'''Discursive dilemma''' or '''doctrinal paradox''' is a [[paradox]] in [[social choice theory]]. The paradox is that aggregating judgments with [[majority voting]] can result in self-contradictory judgments.

			Consider a community voting on a plan to fix a road. The community may vote 'Yes' - the roads are important, 'Yes' - the weather is good right now for road repair, and 'Yes' - we have the money to make the repairs. Based on that information, the plan seems to be to fix the roads. And yet, if the community is asked to vote on "Are all the conditions for road repair present?", the community could actually vote 'No', and the plan is now not to fix the roads. This paradox emerges from the complexity of people's opinions on the matter.

			Philosopher Philip Pettit believes the discursive dilemma makes it impossible to make simple statements about the beliefs of a collective.

			==Overview==
			Princeton philosopher Philip Pettit says there are hidden challenges of describing the group as though it were a single individual - a metaphorical agent - the way the law sometimes talks about corporations. It is a mistake, he says, to think things can be that simple. In reality, it can be quite difficult to construct a model of the "group mind" by merely asking for a majority opinion. This is because contradictory conceptions of a group can emerge depending on the type of questioning that is chosen.<ref name=Pettit>http://philosophybites.com/2010/12/philip-pettit-on-group-agency.html</ref>

			{\| width="40%" align="right" class="wikitable"
			!
			! ''P'' \|\| ''Q'' \|\| Do they grant the relation:<br> ''C'' = ''P'' & ''Q'' \|\| ''C''
			\|-
			! Judge 1
			\| yes \|\| yes \|\| yes \|\| yes
			\|-
			! Judge 2
			\| no \|\| yes \|\| yes \|\| no
			\|-
			! Judge 3
			\| yes \|\| no \|\| yes \|\| no
			\|-
			! Majority decision
			\| yes \|\| yes \|\| yes \|\| no
			\|}

			To see how, imagine that a three-member court must decide whether someone is liable for a breach of contract. For example, a lawn caretaker is accused of violating a contract not to mow over the land-owner's roses. The judges have to decide which of the following propositions are true:
			* ''P'': the defendant did a certain action (i.e. did the caretaker mow over the roses?);
			* ''Q'': the defendant had a contractual obligation not to do that action (i.e. was there a contract not to mow over the roses?);
			* ''C'': the defendant is liable.
			Additionally, all judges accept the proposition <math>C \equiv P \and Q</math>. In other words, the judges agree that a defendant should be liable only if P and Q are both true.

			Each judge could make consistent (non-contradictory) judgements, and the paradox will still emerge. Most judges could think P is true, and most judges could think Q is true. In this example, that means they would vote that the caretaker probably mowed over the roses, and that the contract did indeed forbid that action. This suggests the caretaker is ''liable''. In contrast, most judges may think that P and Q are not both true. In this example, that means most judges conclude the caretaker ''not liable''. The table above illustrates how majority decisions can contradict (because the judges vote in favor of the premises, and yet reject the conclusion).

			This dilemma results because an actual decision-making procedure might be premise-based or conclusion-based. In a premise-based procedure, the judges decide by voting whether the conditions for liability are met. In a conclusion-based procedure, the judges decide directly whether the defendant should be liable. In this formulation, the paradox is that the two procedures don't necessarily lead to the same result; the two procedures can even lead to opposite results.
			{{-}}

			The discursive dilemma can be seen as a generalization of the [[Condorcet paradox]], as a preference set is just a special kind of proposition set.{{Clarify\|how\|date=July 2011}} Just as the Condorcet paradox can be generalized to [[Arrow's theorem]], List and Pettit argue that the discursive dilemma can be generalized to the [[List-Pettit theorem]], which states that the inconsistency remains for any aggregation method which meets a few natural conditions.

			Pettit believes that the lesson of this paradox is that there is no simple way to aggregate individual opinions into a single, coherent "group entity". These ideas are relevant to [[Sociology]], which endeavors to understand and predict group behaviour. Petitt warns that we need to understand groups because they can be very powerful, can effect greater change, and yet the group as a whole may not have a strong conscience (see [[Diffusion of responsibility]]). He says we sometimes fail to hold groups (e.g. corporations) responsible because of the difficulties described above, and insists that groups should have limited rights, and various obligations and checks on power.<ref name=Pettit/>

			== References ==
			* List, C. and Pettit, P.: [http://eprints.lse.ac.uk/665/1/AGG2.pdf Aggregating Sets of Judgments: Two Impossibility Results Compared], Synthese 140 (2004) 207–235
			{{Reflist}}

			== External links ==
			* {{PhilPapers\|category\|judgment-aggregation\|Judgment aggregation}}
			* [http://personal.lse.ac.uk/LIST/doctrinalparadox.htm Judgment aggregation]: an introduction and bibliography of the discursive dilemma by Christian List

			[[Category:Social choice theory]]
			[[Category:Paradoxes]]
			[[Category:Dilemmas]]
			[[Category:Social epistemology]]

en>Headbomb: clean up using AWB

2011-03-19T23:44:27Z

clean up using AWB

New page

Wiele firmy z pewnością ochoczo ażeby wykorzystało z tego rodzaju posług. Wiele figur wyrządza sobie testowanie szlamie owe smakuje? Ano wolno zapotrzebować drobne, małe usługi za 200 - 300zł, ale taka jednokrotna posługa istnieje nieobcisło błyskotliwa. Obawiają się oni jednak wzniosłych kosztów połączonych z pozycjonowaniem oraz podobnym tym przebiegiem. Polska stronica ginie w gąszczu innych stronicy a w pewnym sekundy jej widzialność wygasa. Dzięki całkowitemu plikowi działań możemy obwarować sobie widzialność w powierzchni internetowej natomiast naprawdę dobrą promocje. Pozycjonowanie owe obrotny sposób na wypromowanie przebranej strony a realizacji w sieci. Czy można zmniejszyć sumpty? Owe nie tylko postępowania pozycjonera, webmastera, ale również promocja w sieci zaś dobrotliwe opisy na stronie produkowane przez pomysłowego copywritera. Tylko wtedy ma owe powód a zapewnia plony. Warto wyświetlić kilka propozycyj filii interakcyjnych, stwierdzić cennik a dostępne portfolio. [http://tihe.us/car/?agencjaseobia_ystok15371 pozycjonowanie Białystok] postuluje czasu zaś gigantycznego druku harówy. Z tego same jeżeli pożądamy pozostawać spostrzeżeni w sieci musimy ulokować w cały pakiet usługi. Efekty są zauważalne, ale widzialne na powierzchni tygodniom, oraz nawet i kilku miesiąców. Pozycjonowanie - rezolutne natomiast błyskotliwe to długotrwały proces.

Large Veblen ordinal - Revision history

en>Accelerometer: contradiction with ordinal collapsing function

en>Headbomb: clean up using AWB