Rounding
Named by 5 essays across 2 fields — each of them below, with the objects they name alongside it.
A difference too small to draw
Two starting points a ten-thousandth apart, under the same rule, with nothing random anywhere. Within forty steps they have nothing in common — and the rule was not doing anything to them that it does not do to everything.
The seat that vanishes when the house grows
Twenty-seven whole seats have to be divided between five regions whose exact shares are 15.417, 7.209, 1.755, 1.431 and 1.188. Every rule for rounding those five numbers breaks something, and the instance drawn here breaks all three of the classical ways at once.
Five rules and one dial
Adams, Webster and Jefferson are usually taught as three rules for rounding a share. They are one rule with a number in it, and turning that number from nought to one moves seats from the smallest region to the largest, one at a time.
The rule with no favourites
Over four hundred instances, Jefferson's method gives the largest region a third of a seat more than its exact share and the smallest a third of a seat less. Adams reverses both. Webster's average is a hundredth of a seat, and that is not luck.
Seats to parties and places at once
The ladder's first five rungs give seats to regions in proportion to one list of populations, and prove that no rule does it perfectly. Ask for seats to regions and to parties simultaneously and the object stops being a list — and the impossibility that closed the subject does not apply.
Named alongside it
The objects these essays reach for when they reach for this one.
ApportionmentDivisor methodCounting argumentGeometric meanMonotonicityQuotaAlabama paradoxBiasChaosDeterminismExpectationFairness