| paper | d4-journals-mss-2020-0040 |
| authors | — |
| venue | ? |
| filed under | unclassified |
| judged by | gpt-6-luna / xhigh (triple__luna__xhigh__c6r1) |
| judge confidence | high |
| authors would recognise it | no |
Neither case identifies a named computational result: Proposition 1 concerns real-valued representation, and Proposition 2 concerns non-Ramsey-set existence. The proposed distribution over utility levels would also lose the temporal ordering used by the paper’s axioms, but the absence of a computational result is decisive.
fails bit a — no named computational result to mirror
No computational result is covered; Propositions 1 and 2 concern representation and non-Ramsey existence.
I can’t make an honest case that meets your anchor rule: this paper has no named computational result in the required sense. Proposition 1, proved here, says there is no real-valued social welfare function on \(Y^{\mathbb N}\), for \(Y=\{a,b\}\), satisfying anonymity and upper asymptotic Pareto; its proof establishes the impossibility even under weak upper asymptotic Pareto. Proposition 2, also proved here, says that if an anonymous social welfare order satisfying upper asymptotic Pareto exists on that binary domain, then a non-Ramsey set exists. These are results about representation and set-theoretic constructibility, not complexity bounds or algorithmic classifications.
The most charitable possible analogy would treat generations as a population and utility levels as types. But a distribution over utility types discards the order of generations that drives the paper’s asymptotic-density axioms. A continuous question built from that distribution would therefore change the underlying problem, and neither proposition anchors a computational question with an instance, task, and solution. I see no positive mirror here that the authors could recognize as a continuous-population version of one of their named computational results.
The strongest case against a mirror is that neither named proposition is a computational result. Proposition 1 rules out a real-valued representation of certain social welfare orders; Proposition 2 derives a non-Ramsey set from the existence of such an order. The paper’s concern with an “explicit description” is about constructibility and set-theoretic obstructions. It supplies no finite instance, computational task, complexity bound, or algorithm to continuize. A continuous version of either proposition would remain an axiomatic or foundational question, outside ChoCo’s target.
The best rescue would model generations as measured cohorts and ask whether an anonymous welfare order satisfying a measure-based Pareto condition exists. But an aggregate distribution of utility changes forgets their arrangement over time, while the paper’s upper asymptotic density depends on how improvements occur across successive prefixes. Preserving that information requires carrying an ordered history or a continuum time axis. That changes the object into a model of time or infinite paths; it does not yield a high-multiplicity society with a finite type support and a computational problem. This concern about losing temporal structure is secondary: even if authors recognized a continuum analogue of their axioms, the paper offers no computational result for it to mirror.
The adversarial triple: the proponent anchors on up to three named results; the opponent sees that case and must defeat every anchor; the judge decides which case convinced it. These are the pipeline’s own outputs, generated by tools/triple_run.py — no human edited them. The paper’s own text is not reproduced here beyond the quoted statement above.