Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2019 January 3
| Humanities desk | ||
|---|---|---|
| < January 2 | << Dec | January | Feb >> | January 4 > |
| Welcome to the Wikipedia Humanities Reference Desk Archives |
|---|
| The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages. |
January 3
editMojave County, CA
editIs there a map anywhere showing the proposed boundaries of Mojave County? --Lazar Taxon (talk) 19:16, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
- I can give an unsatisfying partial answer -- the border would be somewhere in San Bernardino National Forest. But I'm coming up short at finding anything more precise than that. I can only find county ballot measures going back to 2008, not 1988, and while many ballot measures refer to intra-county divisions, I can't promise that the boundaries now are exactly what they would have been during the 1988 secession vote.--M@rēino 21:22, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
- I can find no information on failed measures earlier than 2002 on the History of California Initiatives, maintained on the webpage of the Secretary of State of California.
- If the proposition had been voted into law, it would be listed in this archive list; but since it was not successful, it's absent from that summary list.
- However, the state archivist maintains a reference desk: contact them using their listed email (at the bottom of their webpage). It is very likely that they can provide archived text of the measure, if it actually ever appeared on 1988 ballots (or any other ballot, for that matter). If the "proposal" never even got that far, then its proponents probably never finalized the exact implementation details anyway.
- If you're in Sacramento, they'll help you at no cost; otherwise, they'll do the search for you but you'll have to pay something like 25 cents per page of archive that they discover on your behalf.
- Nimur (talk) 00:36, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
- What you probably need is the "Statement of Vote" for that election, issued by the Secretary of State. I did review the ones from 1946 and 1950 when I was there doing research on Nixon's early elections, but I don't recall if there were ballot measures contained in it.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:50, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
- When I was having the map made for 1950 United States Senate election in California, I seem to remember there had been a small adjustment in the boundary between San Bernardino and Inyo sometime between 1950 and when I was doing the research (2008?) close to the Nevada line. At least, that is my recollection. I decided that perfect was the enemy of good and had our standard county map of California used to display the results.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:56, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
- What you probably need is the "Statement of Vote" for that election, issued by the Secretary of State. I did review the ones from 1946 and 1950 when I was there doing research on Nixon's early elections, but I don't recall if there were ballot measures contained in it.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:50, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
Pareto efficiency
editIt looks to me as if the article Pareto optimum gets strong and weak the wrong way round. A random website seems to agree with me. Amirite, or am I just confused? All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 22:03, 3 January 2019 (UTC).
- The section Pareto efficiency#Weak Pareto efficiency says “Weak Pareto-optimality is "weaker" than strong Pareto-optimality in the sense that any SPO also qualifies as a WPO, but a WPO allocation is not necessarily an SPO.” This explanation makes sense to me – the weak case is easier to occur because any strong case, and other cases as well, qualify as weak cases. Loraof (talk) 04:26, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
- The confusion maybe turns on a weak Pareto optimum not having any strong Pareto improvements, and vice versa. This makes sense from one PoV, but seems confusing from another. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 09:01, 4 January 2019 (UTC).
- The confusion maybe turns on a weak Pareto optimum not having any strong Pareto improvements, and vice versa. This makes sense from one PoV, but seems confusing from another. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 09:01, 4 January 2019 (UTC).
- Here we have the statement: With WPO, any change will make at least one party no better off, but may not make any party worse off. Thus there are no strong Pareto improvements. This agrees with my latest comment above. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 09:25, 4 January 2019 (UTC).