Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-skm99 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-26T12:44:01.639Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

From Arrow’s Theorem to ‘Dark Matter’

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  21 July 2015

Donald G. Saari
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Arrow’s Impossibility Theorem and Sen’s Minimal Liberalism example impose ‘impossibility’ roadblocks on progress. A reinterpretation explained in this article exposes what causes these negative conclusions, which permits the development of positive resolutions that retain the spirit of Arrow’s and Sen’s assumptions. What precipitates difficulties is surprisingly common, and it affects most disciplines. This insight identifies how to analyze other puzzles such as conflicting laws or controversies over voting rules. An unexpected bonus is that this social science issue defines a research agenda to address the ‘dark matter’ mystery confronting astronomers.

Type
Featured Article
Information
British Journal of Political Science , Volume 46 , Supplement 1 , January 2016 , pp. 1 - 9
Copyright
© Cambridge University Press 2015 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

*

University of California, Irvine (email: dsaari@uci.edu). The author thanks the four referees for their thoughtful comments and suggestions, and also G. Hazelrigg, K. Meyer, and M. Salles for their comments and continued interest in this project. The research was supported by an NSF grant. Online appendices are available at http://dx.doi.org/doi: 10.1017/S000712341500023X

References

Arrow, K. J. [1951]. 1963. Social Choice and Individual Values, 2nd edn., New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
Bargagliotti, A., and Saari, D. G.. 2010. Symmetry of Nonparametric Statistical Tests on Three Samples. Journal of Mathematics and Statistics 6 (4):395–408.Google Scholar
Hazelrigg, G. 1998. A Framework for Decision-Based Engineering Design. Journal of Mechanical Design 120 (4):653–658.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haunsperger, D. 1992. Dictionaries of Paradoxes for Statistical Tests on k Samples. Journal of the American Statistical Association 87:149–155.Google Scholar
Jervis, R. 1998. System Effects: Complexity in Political Science and Social Life. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Katz, L. 2012. Why the Law is So Perverse. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Mackenzie, D. 2013. Rethinking ‘Star Soup’. SIAM News, 46 (September).Google Scholar
Panek, R. 2011. The 4-Percent Universe. New York: Houghton-Miffin-Harcourt.Google Scholar
Saari, D. G. 1995. Basic Geometry of Voting. New York: Springer-Verlag.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Saari, D. G. 1999. Explaining All Three Alternative Voting Outcomes. Journal of Economic Theory 87:313–355.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Saari, D. G. 2000a. Mathematical Structure of Voting Paradoxes 1: Pairwise Vote. Economic Theory 15:1–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Saari, D. G. 2000b. Mathematical Structure of Voting Paradoxes 2: Positional Voting. Economic Theory 15:55–101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Saari, D. G. 2001. Decisions and Elections: Explaining the Unexpected. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Saari, D. G. 2005. Collisions, Rings, and Other Newtonian N-Body Problems. Providence, RI: American Math Society.Google Scholar
Saari, D. G. 2008. Disposing Dictators, Demystifying Voting Paradoxes. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Saari, D. G. 2015a. A New Way to Analyze Paired Comparison Rules. Mathematics of Operation Research 39:647–655.Google Scholar
Saari, D. G. 2015b. N-Body Solutions and Computing Galactic Masses. Astronomical Journal 194 (May): 174–180.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Saari, D. G. 2015c. Mathematics and the ‘Dark Matter’ Puzzle. American Math Monthly 122 (5):407–422.Google Scholar
Saari, D. G., and Sieberg, K.. 2004. Are Partwise Comparisons Reliable? Research in Engineering Design 15:62–71.Google Scholar
Sen, A. 1970. The Impossibility of a Paretian Liberal. Journal of Political Economy 78:152–157.Google Scholar
Stearns, M. 2002. Constitutional Process: A Social Choice Analysis of Supreme Court Decision Making. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
Supplementary material: PDF

Donald G. Saari supplementary material S1

Appendix

Download Donald G. Saari supplementary material S1(PDF)
PDF 161.9 KB