4 ms·

You're right. After publishing, someone on Reddit told me that fractional votes are technically OK. If you look closely for it, I mention it in a footnote that

You're right. After publishing, someone on Reddit told me that fractional votes are technically OK. If you look closely for it, I mention it in a footnote that I added after publishing.

iainmerrick 5y ago
If you’re willing to edit the post, I suggest just removing that whole section, or at least boiling it down to a couple of sentences (here’s a thing that went wrong, here’s the fix). It seems like a rather shallow observation that just detracts from the deeper ones that follow.
- timdaub 5y ago
  I had considered doing that. But I think it'd paint a false picture. In the half a year of developing the app, and me being mostly concerned with correctly implementing the voting algorithm and understanding the math - when reading Wikipedia and what is outlined in Weyl's book, it wasn't obvious that fractal votes can be used. As a single tech freelancer working for a federally-funded exhibition hall, I wanted things to be correct. So I stuck to the script (aka the most credible sources accessible). I've added the footnote in the article linking to a Reddit post where someone claims having talked to Weyl about fractal votes and that he positively reaffirmed it [1]. Anyone could comment that though. But from a mathematical point of view, it isn't trivial (at least for me) whether fractal votes represent the same system as is currently laid as "quadratic voting". Sure, if I end up completely understanding why fractal votes are mathematically equal to natural-numbered votes, I'll do as you suggested. references: - 1: https://www.reddit.com/r/radicalxchange/comments/tprsgi/the_user_experience_problems_of_quadratic_voting/i2e519e/ https://www.reddit.com/r/radicalxchange/comments/tprsgi/the_...
  - 3np 5y ago
    Surely you mean fractional and not fractal? I'm new to this but intuitively: The function is contiguous. Natural votes somehow behaving differently is what would be unexpected and need proof.

You're right. After publishing, someone on Reddit told me that fractional votes are technically OK. If you look closely for it, I mention it in a footnote that I added after publishing.

iainmerrick 5y ago

If you’re willing to edit the post, I suggest just removing that whole section, or at least boiling it down to a couple of sentences (here’s a thing that went wrong, here’s the fix). It seems like a rather shallow observation that just detracts from the deeper ones that follow.

timdaub 5y ago
I had considered doing that. But I think it'd paint a false picture. In the half a year of developing the app, and me being mostly concerned with correctly implementing the voting algorithm and understanding the math - when reading Wikipedia and what is outlined in Weyl's book, it wasn't obvious that fractal votes can be used. As a single tech freelancer working for a federally-funded exhibition hall, I wanted things to be correct. So I stuck to the script (aka the most credible sources accessible). I've added the footnote in the article linking to a Reddit post where someone claims having talked to Weyl about fractal votes and that he positively reaffirmed it [1]. Anyone could comment that though. But from a mathematical point of view, it isn't trivial (at least for me) whether fractal votes represent the same system as is currently laid as "quadratic voting". Sure, if I end up completely understanding why fractal votes are mathematically equal to natural-numbered votes, I'll do as you suggested. references: - 1: https://www.reddit.com/r/radicalxchange/comments/tprsgi/the_user_experience_problems_of_quadratic_voting/i2e519e/ https://www.reddit.com/r/radicalxchange/comments/tprsgi/the_...
- 3np 5y ago
  Surely you mean fractional and not fractal? I'm new to this but intuitively: The function is contiguous. Natural votes somehow behaving differently is what would be unexpected and need proof.