Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!
We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).
any constantly-decreasing function goes to infinity as you go backward far enough
What about half of pi minus the inverse tan function? It's strictly decreasing but it converges to zero and infinity and to pi at negative infinity
But those scenarios require the assumption that all double-votes (which can only be counted as being for a given candidate if you claim to be able to read the voter's mind) were really votes for Gore.
No. From the article I linked: "Gore picked up 885 more votes than Bush from the examination of overvote ballots, 662 of those from optical scan ballots. The study did not credit Gore with the thousands of votes lost as a result of the infamous butterfly ballot in Palm Beach County... The Post study did not award those overvotes to Gore because no clear voter intent could be determined on a ballot where two candidates were marked... The overvotes that could have provided the margin for Gore were on ballots where voters tried to be extra-clear in their choice and ended up nullifying the vote. They filled in the oval next to a candidate and then filled in the oval for "write-in" and wrote the same candidate's name again."
In other words, in order for Gore to have won, they would have had to count the overvotes. They would not, however, have needed to count the "double votes", the overvotes in which votes for two different candidates were provided. Your misconception probably stems from this distinction. For what it's worth, there were more than 8000 double votes and no scenario had a margin of more than 600 votes, so Gore would have needed far less than all of them to come out on top.
Not that I think it matters at all now, but I think it's worth being accurate.
And of course, you're surely aware that in the weeks following the ruling, every vote was recounted by several teams of people, using every standard advocated by either candidate, and several others, as well. In each recount, regardless of the technique used, Gore lost in Florida. Not to bother you with the facts or anything.
Sorry to drag the conversation even farther from the topic, but your claim is demonstrably false (and as such I can't bear to let it stand uncontradicted). In the study commissioned by the Washington Post and other media organizations, Gore won some of the scenarios (including all of the scenarios involving a full, statewide recount) while Bush won others. Wikipedia has a nice table of the results. You are correct, however, in that Bush won in all of the recount scenarios put forward by Gore.
If you are near capacity for production though you can calculate how many you will sell in each location and set prices in free markets as to make up for prices in government controlled areas.
If you are near capacity for production, you optimize your profits by selling in free markets and not selling at all in price-controlled markets until the price in free markets drops below the controlled price, in which case you are selling at the same price everywhere anyway. So I still don't believe that price controls in other markets would drive up US prices.