Then Slutskaya skated and Kwan turned out not to be second best in the LP after all, but rather 3rd.
How is it a paradox to say that Michelle was 2nd in the LP before Irina skated but 3rd afterward?
Last edited by dorispulaski; 06-10-2014 at 06:37 PM.
Hmm median has its own problem as someone already pointed out. I think increasing number of judges significantly(at least in big competitions like worlds or olympics) will be more effective and realistic solution to deacrese the possibility of bad judging outcome(mathematically speaking).
^The equivalent political science theory to that paradox is called Independence of Irrelevant Alternatives: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indepen...#Voting_theory
It exists with a lot of voting/ranking systems.
^ However, it is worth pointing out that the example of Hughes, Kwan, and Slutskaya in 2002 is not an example of violation of independence of irrelevant alternatives. (Slutskaya was not "irrelevant" in the technical meaning of the term here. ) The Salt Lake City result was strictly due to factored placements, not to the kind of thing that is studied in social choice theory.
To make the "paradox" go away, all the announcer has to say is, "So far Michelle is in second place in the LP. If this holds up she will win the gold medal. If this placement does not hold up then Hughes or Slutskaya will win."
Last edited by Mathman; 06-11-2014 at 10:06 AM.