Counting Condorcet domains
Abstract.
A Condorcet domain is a collection of linear orders which satisfy an acyclic majority relation. In this paper we describe domains as collections of directed Hamilton paths. We prove that while Black’s single-peaked domains are defined by their extremal paths, Arrow’s single-peaked domains are not. We also introduce domain contractions and domain extensions as well as self-paired domains, and describe some properties of these. We give a formula for the number of isomorphism classes of Arrow’s single-peaked domains in terms of the number of self-paired domains, and give upper and lower bounds on this number. We also enumerate the distinct maximal Arrow’s single-peaked domains for . Finally, we show that all of the observations in this paper can be translated to single-dipped domains, that is, Condorcet domains with complete “never-top” conditions.
1. Introduction
Let be a finite set and let be the set of all linear orders on . A Condorcet domain on is a subset such that every profile composed of preferences from has an acyclic majority relation, that is, it does not contain a Condorcet triple
as defined by M. J. Condorcet [3]. Condorcet domains have been studied extensively (see, for example [1-9], [13]), particularly maximal Condorcet domains.
Definition 1.1.
A Condorcet domain on a set is called maximal if there is no other Condorcet domain with . In other words, if is any linear order of A such that , then contains a Condorcet triple.
It follows from Definition 1.1 that if a is maximal and does not contain a Condorcet triple, then .
A.K. Sen showed in [11] that if is a maximal Condorcet domain on , then one of the following “never conditions” holds for every triple :
-
•
“Never-bottom”: if is the “never-bottom” element of the triple then the preferences and are not permitted in .
-
•
“Never-top”: if is the “never-top” element of the triple then the preferences and are not permitted in .
-
•
“Never-middle”: if is the “never-middle” element of the triple then the preferences and are not permitted in .
A Condorcet domain may satisfy a mixture of these types of conditions, or there can be a single type that holds for every triple. Domains satisfying a “never-bottom” condition on each triple are known as Arrow’s single-peaked domains, after K.J. Arrow following his work in [1]. A specific type of these domains, defined below, was first described by D. Black in [2].
Definition 1.2.
A Black’s single-peaked domain is a domain on a set , such that there exists some “societal axis”, that is, a sequence of the elements of , so that every order has a “peak” at some , with the property that for all ,
-
•
if then and
-
•
if then .
The next two definitions, lemma, and theorem conveyed to the author by A. Slinko [12] lead to the question which is the main motivation for this paper.
Definition 1.3.
Let be a Condorcet domain on a set . A terminal element of is an element such that there exists a linear order which ends with .
Lemma 1.4.
[12] An Arrow’s single-peaked domain has at most two terminal elements. A maximal Arrow’s single peaked domain has exactly two of them.
Definition 1.5.
A linear order which starts with one terminal element and ends at the other is called extremal.
Theorem 1.6.
[12] Any maximal Arrow’s single-peaked domain on a set of size must contain exactly linear orders, two of which must be extremal.
Note that it follows from Definition 1.2 that a maximal Black’s single-peaked Condorcet domain must contain two linear orders which are mutually reverse - that is, if is one extremal order, then must be the other. Furthermore, a Black’s single-peaked domain is uniquely determined by it’s extremal orders. A. Slinko posed the following question in [12]:
Question 1.7.
Given two extremal orders and , is there a unique Arrow’s single-peaked Condorcet domain containing and ?
This question motivated the author to study Condorcet domains, and show that the answer is, in fact, no. This then raises the follow up question: how many maximal Arrow’s single-peaked domains are? Counting the number of isomorphism classes of maximal Arrow’s single-peaked domains is the main focus of this paper, and we significantly reduce this problem to enumerating only self-paired domains.
First, in Section 2, we outline some notation and begin describing domains as collections of directed Hamilton paths. We also introduce domain contractions and simplified domain contractions.
In Section 3 we show that the answer to Question 1.7 is no: there may be multiple Arrow’s single-peaked domains for some pairs of extremal paths. We show this by giving an example on a set of size 6.
In Section 4 we further explore domain contractions. We introduce domain extensions and provide some of their properties.
In Section 5 we introduce inherited permutations and provide necessary conditions for two maximal Arrow’s single-peaked domains to be isomorphic. We introduce the concept of self-paired domains and show their importance in counting maximal Arrow’s single-peaked domains. We also give some necessary conditions for a domain to be self-paired and give bounds for the total number of non-isomorphic maximal Arrow’s single-peaked domains on a set of size .
In Section 6 we enumerate the isomorphism classes of maximal Arrow’s single-peaked domains with some particular inherited permutations.
In Section 7 we give some data on the isomorphism classes maximal Arrow’s single peaked domains on sets of size 5, 6, 7 and 8.
In Section 8 we introduce single-dipped domains, and give some properties of these. We also give a conjecture and suggestions for future work.
Finally in Section 9 we provide details of the distinct maximal Arrow’s single-peaked domains for sets of size 5 and 6.
2. Domains as collections of Hamilton directed paths
Throughout this paper we use to denote the identity permutation and we use the convention of writing permutations in cyclic notation, without the use of commas. For example denotes the permutation . In contrast, we write paths with commas, so that denotes the path through the vertices and , in that order. Given a path , we write for the path given by appending with the vertex . Similarly, we write for the path given by prefixed with . Finally, we denote the position of the vertex in the path by pos, where the first vertex is in position 1.
Let be a finite set and let be a set of vertices each labelled with a different element of . A linear order on defines a Hamilton directed path through in the obvious way. Thus a domain on may be viewed as a collection of Hamilton directed paths thorugh . For simplificity, we will simply refer to this as a Hamilton directed path through . Throughout this paper we distinguish between directed Hamilton paths by showing them in different colours.
Definition 2.1.
Let be a finite set, and let be a collection of Hamilton directed paths through . We define the domain contraction of on a subset to be the set of Hamilton directed paths through , where for each Hamilton directed path we define in through by simply removing the vertices in . Let be a subset of obtained by deleting any repeated paths, and call this the simplified domain contraction of on .
With this definition in mind, we can redefine the Condorcet triple condition in terms of this new configuration.
Lemma 2.2.
Let be a finite set and a collection of Hamilton directed paths through . defines a Condorcet domain on if and only if for every subset of size 3, the simplified domain contraction does not contain a double cycle (that is, three paths as shown in Figure 1).

It is clear to see that the pink path is the preference , the blue path is , and the purple path is , which gives a Condorcet triple. Thus a Condorcet triple will be present if and only if a double cycle is present, as required. In fact, a simplified domain contraction on a subset of size three must be a subset of one of the path collections of the three graphs shown in Figure 2.
Each graph corresponds to a “never” condition on a triple:

Thus we can conclude that in order for a domain to be an Arrow’s single-peaked domain, the simplified domain contraction on any three elements must be a subset of the path collection shown in Graph 3 of Figure 2.
3. Slinko’s Question
A. Slinko in [12] posed Question 1.7: Given two extremal paths and on a set , do they uniquely define a maximal Arrow’s single-peaked domain? It has been shown [10] that this is true of mutually reverse paths, that is, for Black’s single-peaked domains, but, in general, the answer is no. We now prove that for a set of size 6 there may be multiple non-isomorphic maximal Arrow’s single-peaked domains on a given pair of extremal paths.
Example 3.1.
Let and define the Hamilton directed paths and , as shown in Figure 3. These must be extremal paths for any domain which contains them, so any paths in must end in or .

In the domain contraction on , and are equal, which gives us a level of freedom in choosing how other paths will behave on this contraction. There are, up to isomorphism, two distinct Arrow’s single-peaked Condorcet domains on 4 elements. Suppose we decide that will be one extremal path, then we have two choices for the second, either the twisted case or the reversed case of . In each case we have 8 possible paths on the domain contraction, and we consider how we can complete them to get paths on the original set. First, every path must end in either or , so we consider those ending in and look at the possible position of in both cases. To this end, we consider the domain contractions of and , as shown in Figure 4.

Now, for a maximal Arrow’s single-peaked domain, the full domain must be isomorphic to Graph 3 in Figure 2. Thus our allowed paths are , , and , and the disallowed paths are and . Similarly, for all other contractions of the form with , and alphabetically before , the subpaths and are disallowed. With these rules in mind, we give all possible linear orders ending in for the maximal domain in both the twisted case and the reversed case, in the table below. To get the orders ending in , simply swap and in the given orders.
Twisted case | Reversed case | |
---|---|---|
1 | ||
2 | ||
3 | ||
4 | ||
5 | ||
6 | ||
7 | ||
8 | ||
9 | ||
10 | ||
11 | ||
12 | ||
13 | ||
14 | ||
15 | ||
16 |
Note that the orders given are the same in both cases, except for orders 15 and 16, so clearly there is no isomorphism between the twisted case and the reversed case. With the addition of the orders ending in , we get a total of 32 orders in each case, as required for a maximal Arrow’s single-peaked domain.
From this example we know that there may be more than one isomorphism class of maximal Arrow’s single-peaked domains for a pair of extremal paths. The natural next question to ask is: how many are there for a given ? Or perhaps; how many are isomorphism classes are there for a given pair of extremal paths? We explore these questions throughout the rest of the paper, and give the answers for (in Section 7) and some families of extremal paths (in Section 6).
4. Contraction and Extension of Arrow’s single-peaked domains
We begin by giving a lemma from A. Slinko [13], transcribed into the language of domain contractions.
Lemma 4.1 (13).
Let be a maximal Arrow’s single-peaked domain on , with terminal vertices . If is the set of Hamilton directed paths in which end in for then the simplified domain contraction of on is a maximal Arrow’s single-peaked domain, for . Furthermore, if
then there exists an isomorphism between and such that , , and for all .
The following lemma is a consequence of the above.
Lemma 4.2.
Let be a maximal Arrow’s single-peaked domain on a set of size . If and are the terminal vertices of then for and , there are paths in with in the position, and one path with in the first position.
Proof.
We proceed by induction on , with the base case . Here we refer back to Graph 3 of Figure 2 and we concern ourselves with the terminal vertex which appears in position 3 in two paths, position 2 in one path and position 1 in the other. The same is true for the other terminal vertex . Hence, the claim of Lemma 4.2 is true for . Now assume this claim is true for , and let be a maximal Arrow’s single-peaked domain on a set of size , with terminal vertices . Without loss of generality we prove the claim for . By Lemma 4.1, the paths ending in form a maximal Arrow’s single peaked domain on , for . Hence there are paths ending in , as required, for . Furthermore, is a terminal vertex in , which is a domain on elements, and by induction, the claim holds in this domain. Hence, in there are paths with in position , for , and one path with in position 1. However, each path is in one-to-one correspondence with a path in , and this completes the proof. ∎
Note that for a given pair of extremal paths and , the number of non-equal, but possibly isomorphic, maximal Arrow’s single-peaked domains with and as extremal paths must be a power of two. This is due to the fact that for each triple the “never-bottom” element is either set or there are two options for it.
Definition 4.3.
Let be a Condorcet domain on . A domain extension of by is a Condorcet domain on , such that the simplified domain contraction is equal to .
Lemma 4.4.
If is an Arrow’s single peaked domain on a set of size then there are ways to extend to a maximal Arrow’s single-peaked domain on in such a way that is a terminal vertex in .
Proof.
First note that this lemma does not state that the domains achieved in this process are non-isomorphic, only that they are not equal. We proceed by induction. If and , then can be one of the following:
-
(1)
;
-
(2)
;
-
(3)
;
-
(4)
Now assume that for any domain on a set of size there are ways of adding as a terminal vertex. We prove the claim for a set of size . First let be the set of paths on obtained from by appending to the end of each path. Next let be the terminal vertices of . Our first choice is whether or should remain a terminal vertex. If we choose , then from Lemma 4.1 the paths ending in form a maximal Arrow’s single-peaked domain on , and so by the induction hypothesis, there are ways of adding as a terminal vertex to this domain. Let be one of these extensions. Now let be the set of paths on obtained from by appending to the end of each path. Then gives the maximal Arrow’s single-peaked domain on , and there are ways of obtaining a domain in this way. ∎
Proof.
We proceed by induction, with the base case of . All of the possible extensions of by are given in the proof of the proceeding lemma. Each of the resulting four domains corresponds to a particular , such that is in the domain extension. This proves the claim for . Now suppose the claim is true on any set of size . Let be the domain we wish to extend, and let . In order to create over , we first append to every path in , giving our first paths of . We then select all paths which end in the same element as , for example . By Lemma 4.1, these form a maximal Arrow’s single-peaked domain on . Let be the domain contraction of on . By the induction hypothesis, this domain can be uniquely extended to a maximal Arrow’s single-peaked domain on containing . We then append to the paths produced by this domain extension, which completes the domain on . ∎
Lemma 4.5.
Let be a maximal Arrow’s single-peaked domain on a set of size . Let be a terminal vertex of , and let be a path with in position . Let be the path on obtained from by moving to position . If then .
Proof.
If ends in then the conclusion is trivial. If is the second-to-last vertex in , then it follows from Lemma 4.1. Now suppose is in position . Let be the vertex directly after in , and let be any vertex before in , so that the domain contraction of on is equal to . Then the terminal vertices of this contraction must be and . Thus obtained from by swapping and will be in , since will be equal to on all other contractions. The proof now follows by induction for all . Finally, if begins with for some , then for all , the domain contraction of on is . Since is a terminal vertex, the “never-bottom” element of this triple is . Thus, will be in , since it will be equal to on any domain contraction of this form , and equal to on the domain contration of any other triple. This completes the proof. ∎
5. Isomorphisms and counting
Example 3.1 outlined in Section 3 shows that extremal paths do not define maximal Arrow’s single-peaked domains. However, since the extremal paths of a maximal Arrow’s single-peaked domain provide some characterisation of its isomorphism class, it is still worth considering extremal paths in an attempt to count the number of isomorphism classes. The following Lemma was given by A. Slinko in [12].
Lemma 5.1.
[12] Let be a set of size , and let be a Hamilton directed path on and let . If and then the pair is isomorphic to the pair .
The proof was not given by Slinko in [12], but it easy to see that sends to and to , and the proof follows. Note that if then is an automorphism.
Thus we may consider possible pairs of extremal paths on a set of size , based on an arbitrary directed Hamilton path and the permutations with . Lemma 5.1 allows us to exclude one such permutation from each pair for which .
Definition 5.2.
Let be a maximal Arrow’s single-peaked domain with and as extremal paths. We say that the permutation formed by the composition of with is the inherited permutation of , and denote it by . We may also refer to as .
Note that an inherited permutation must swap the terminal vertices of the domain. This will be assumed throughout this paper.
Lemma 5.3.
If and are maximal Arrow’s single-peaked domains with and as extremal paths, such that then if and are isomorphic then is the isomorphism between the two. Consequently if is not of order 2 then and cannot be isomorphic.
Proof.
First note that any isomorphism between and must either swap or fix and . Hence the only possible isomorphisms are the identity and . However, the identity is excluded by the assertion that . Hence and are isomorphic if and only if is the isomorphism between them. Now suppose is not the identity. Then and . Hence can not be an isomorphism between and as it neither fixes nor swaps and . Therefore must be the identity if and are isomorphic. ∎
Definition 5.4.
Let be a maximal Arrow’s single-peaked domain with inherited permutation . If maps to itself we say that is self-paired.
The next lemma follows directly from Lemma 5.3.
Lemma 5.5.
If is a self-paired maximal Arrow’s single-peaked domain with inheirited permutation , then must have order 2.
Lemma 5.6.
Let be a maximal Arrow’s single-peaked domain on a set with inherited permutation . Then is self-paired if and only if for each triple , if is the “never-bottom” element of a triple , then is the “never-bottom” element of .
Proof.
By definition, is self-paired if and only if for each . It follows that if terminates at on some domain contraction on , then the domain contraction on then terminates at . Thus must be a terminal vertex of the domain contraction on in order for to be self-paired. This occurs for all if and only if it occurs on every triple. ∎
Remark 5.7.
Let be the maximal subset of such that fixes every element in . If is a triple in then fixes every element of . Hence the “never-bottom” elements of and coincide. Furthermore, for triples containing both and and triples such that the “never-bottom of and coincide. Hence, the problem is reduced to checking triples which contain at least one element of . Furthermore, suppose that is self-paired, and that where . Let . Then either is the “never-bottom” element of , or .
Corollary 5.8.
Let be a maximal Arrows single-peaked domain on a set with extemal paths and . If there exist such that , and then is not self-paired.
Note that if does not have such a pair there is at least one self-paired maximal Arrow’s single-peaked domain with and as extremal paths but there may also be non-self-paired maximal Arrow’s single-peaked domains with and as extremal paths. We now show the importance of self-paired domains with the main theorem of this paper.
Theorem 5.9.
Let denote the number of isomorphism classes of maximal Arrow’s single-peaked domains on elements. Let denote the total number of all maximal Arrow’s single-peaked domains on a set of size , without reduction under isomorphism, but which all share a common extremal path. Let denote the number of isomorphism classes of self-paired maximal Arrow’s single-peaked domains on a set of size . Then and for all the following hold:
-
(1)
,
-
(2)
, and
-
(3)
Proof.
Note that also denotes the number of of self-paired maximal Arrow’s single-paired domains on elements which share an extremal path.
First we prove . Take the set . Consider the maximal Arrow’s single-peaked domains containing the path as an extremal path. For these, and must be the terminal vertices. But there is only one maximal Arrow’s single-peaked domain for with and as terminal vertices, namely . Hence , and since there is only one, . Finally this domain is self-paired, so .
Next we prove 5.9.. Let be the set of maximal Arrow’s single-peaked domains on a set , of size , which all have a common extremal path .
By Lemma 4.4, each domain in can be extended to a maximal Arrow’s single-peaked domain on , in a total of ways. Half of these domains will have terminal vertices , and the other half will have terminal vertices . Let be the half which have as a terminal vertex. From the construction in the proof of Lemma 4.4, the path must be common to all domains in . Furthermore, begins with and ends with , and therefore, it is an extremal path. Thus we have .
Now suppose is a maximal Arrow’s single-peaked domain on with as an extremal path. Then is an extremal path in the simplified domain contraction . Thus we have , and hence is in and . Finally, this implies that .
Now we prove 5.9.. Let be the set of maximal Arrow’s single-peaked domains on a set , of size , with common path . Let and . Note that and partition and that as required.
The above theorem reduces the problem of enumerating isomorphism classes of maximal Arrow’s single-peaked domains to enumerating self-paired maximal Arrow’s single-peaked domains. Furthermore, by Lemma 5.5, we need only consider maximal Arrow’s single-peaked domains with inherited permutations of order 2. Corollary 5.8 further reduces the number of permutation which need to be considered.
6. Some particular inherited permutations
Lemma 6.1.
Let be a maximal Arrow’s single peaked domain on a set of size . Let , where and are the terminal vertices of . If with then there exists some with for all , and and .
Proof.
The proof follows directly from Remark 5.7 since the fixed points of are and thus, ∎
Theorem 6.2.
The number of non-isomorphic maximal Arrow’s single-peaked domains on a set of size , with is equal to 1 for , and for all . All such domains are self-paired.
Proof.
First note that in any maximal Arrow’s single-peaked domain on a set of size 3. Thus for we have domains. Now, let be the set of domains on a set , of size , all with as an extremal path. By Lemma 4.5, each domain in contains the path , and by Lemma LABEL:L:UniqExt, each domain in can be uniquely extended to a domain on with and as extremal paths. Thus, there are at most domains with and as extremal paths. Let be a domain with and as extremal paths. Then the simplified domain contraction must be in . Thus, for there are at least domains, and it follows that there are exactly with and as extremal paths. The fact that these domains are self-paired follows directly from Lemma 6.1 and hence the domains with and as extremal paths are non-isomorphic. ∎
At this stage we have reduced the problem of counting isomorphism classes of maximal Arrow’s single-peaked domains to counting self-paired maximal Arrow’s single-peaked domains which have of order 2.
Lemma 6.3.
Let be a maximal Arrow’s single-peaked domain. If is an extremal path of then contains the path .
Proof.
On any contraction on a set containing and/or , the path will end at one of the two, which is allowed. Furthermore, on any contraction on a set , of size at least 3, the path will terminate at the same vertex as , which must be allowed. Thus satisfies the “never-bottom” conditions on all triples, and must be in , as claimed. ∎
Theorem 6.4.
Let , such that or . The number of maximal Arrow’s single-peaked domains with
and as extremal paths is . Moreover, all such domains are self-paired.
Proof.
Let , and let be the set of maximal Arrow’s single-peaked domains on with extremal paths and . By Theorem 6.2, .
By Lemma LABEL:L:UniqExt, any domain in can be uniquely extended twice to a domain on with and as extremal paths.
By Lemma 4.5, each also contains
and , so each domain in can also be extended twice to with
and as extremal paths by Lemma LABEL:L:UniqExt. Note that with relabelling this gives and with . Clearly, any domain with and or and as extremal paths will be in , so there are exactly of each type of domain.
Now it remains to be shown that all such domains are self-paired. First we consider the domain with and as extremal paths. By Lemma 5.6, since we have we must consider triples containing and/or . Let such that is before in . The table below gives details of these triples, showing that each satisfies the conditions of Lemma 5.6.
never bottom | |||
By Lemma 5.6, if follows that is self-paired. Next, for we have the same permutation, and we get the same table as above, except that we must consider separately from and . For these triples we get the following:
never bottom | |||
Thus is also self-paired, as required. ∎
7. Isomorphism classes for small sets
The table below gives , and , as defined in Theorem 5.9, for . Note that by Theorem 6.2, the number of isomorphism clasess of maximal Arrow’s single-peaked domains with inherited permutation is , and so gives the number of self-paired maximal Arrow’s single-peaked domains with of order 2. This number is all that needs to befound in order to calculate , by Theorem 5.9.
3 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 |
4 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 2 |
5 | 2 | 4 | 6 | |
6 | 16 | 40 | ||
7 | 98 | 560 | ||
8 | 17024 |
We expand on this briefly in the tables below, which give the numbers of self-paired domains with terminal vertices and inherited permutation , for given permutations of order 1 or 2.
For more details on isomorphism classes of maximal Arrow’s single-peaked domains on sets of size 5 and 6, see Section 9.
Self-paired | |
1 | |
1 | |
0 | |
id | 2 |
Total | 4 |
Self-paired | |
1 | |
1 | |
0 | |
0 | |
2 | |
0 | |
1 | |
1 | |
2 | |
id | 8 |
Total | 16 |
Self-paired | |
2 | |
2 | |
0 | |
0 | |
4 | |
0 | |
0 | |
0 | |
8 | |
0 |
Self-paired | |
1 | |
1 | |
1 | |
1 | |
0 | |
0 | |
2 | |
2 | |
0 | |
0 | |
0 | |
4 | |
4 | |
0 | |
0 | |
id | 64 |
Total | 96 |
Self-paired | |
8 | |
8 | |
0 | |
0 | |
0 | |
0 | |
0 | |
0 | |
0 | |
0 | |
0 | |
16 | |
32 | |
64 | |
0 | |
0 | |
0 | |
0 | |
0 | |
0 | |
0 | |
0 | |
0 | |
0 | |
0 | |
0 |
Self-paired | |
0 | |
0 | |
0 | |
0 | |
0 | |
0 | |
0 | |
0 | |
0 | |
8 | |
0 | |
0 | |
8 | |
0 | |
0 | |
1 | |
0 | |
2 | |
4 | |
0 | |
2 | |
4 | |
0 | |
0 | |
1 | |
0 |
Self-paired | |
1 | |
2 | |
0 | |
1 | |
2 | |
16 | |
8 | |
4 | |
16 | |
8 | |
4 | |
8 | |
4 | |
2 | |
8 | |
4 | |
2 | |
2 | |
1 | |
2 | |
1 | |
1 | |
1 | |
id | 1024 |
Total | 1280 |
8. Single-Dipped Domains and future directions.
Definition 8.1.
Let be a Condorcet domain on a set . We say that is a single-dipped domain if has a “never-top” element on every triple .
Theorem 8.2.
Let be the set of Arrow’s single-peaked domains on a set and be the set of single-dipped domains on . The elements of are in one-to-one correspondence with the elements of .
Proof.
Let be a function which acts on by reversing each path in . Since is an Arrow’s single-peaked domain, it has a “never-bottom” element in every triple . Thus must have a “never-top” element on . Hence is a single-dipped domain. Clearly is self-inverse and is therefore a one-to-one correspondence, as required. ∎
The following is a direct consequence of Theorem 8.2.
Corollary 8.3.
The number of maximal Arrow’s single-peaked domains on a set is equal to the number of maximal single-dipped domains on .
Similarly, many other observations in this paper and in the literature may be transcribed from an observation about Arrow’s single-peaked domains to an observation about single-dipped domains.
The problem of counting maximal Arrow’s single-peaked domains has been reduced to counting self-paired maximal Arrow’s single-peaked domains, for which we have counted the number with inherited permutations , , , , and (trivially) for any permutations which has order greater than 2, or which satisfies the conditions of Corollary 5.8. For larger sets, this is a relatively small part of the problem. We have noticed, however, that the number of self-paired domains with seems to be relatively small. We predict that the domains with make up at least half of all of the self-paired domains on a given set, and make the following conjecture.
Conjecture 8.4.
Let be the number of non-isomorphic maximal Arrow’s single-peaked domains on a set of size . Then the following bound holds:
where and for .
While this paper reduces the problem of counting maximal Arrow’s single-peaked domains (and thus maximal single-dipped domains), there is still much yet to be investigated. Furthermore, the problem of counting other types of Condorcet domains is, to the knowledge of the author, still open.
9. Appendix: Domains on a sets of size 5 and 6
In this section we give a representative of each isomorphism class of maximal Arrow’s single-peaked domains on sets of size 5 and 6. For compactness, we denote the path by . The column labelled “Paths” gives the paths needed to define the given domain.
Domains on a set of size 5 | ||
Paths | Linear orders | |
, | , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | |
, | , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | |
, | , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | |
, , | , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | |
, , | , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | |
, | , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , |
Note that the pair of extremal paths has two non-equal domains, but they are isomorphic.
Domains on a set of size 6 | ||
Paths | Linear orders | |
, | , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | |
, | , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | |
, | , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | |
, | , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | |
, | , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | |
, | , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | |
, , | , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | |
, , | , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | |
, , | , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | |
, , | , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | |
, , | , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | |
, , | , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | |
, , | , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | |
, , | , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | |
, , | , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | |
, , | , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | |
, , | , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | |
, , | , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | |
, , , | , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | |
, , , | , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | |
, , , | , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | |
, , , | , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | |
, , , | , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | |
, , , | , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | |
, , | , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | |
, , | , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | |
, , , | , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | |
, , , | , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | |
, , | , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | |
, , | , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | |
, , | , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | |
, , | , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | |
, , | , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | |
, , | , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | |
, , | , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | |
, , | , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | |
, , , | , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | |
, , , | , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | |
, , , | , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | |
, , , | , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , |
10. References
[1] K. J. Arrow. Social choice and individual values. Wiley, New York, 1st
edition, 1951.
[2] D. Black. On the rationale of group decision-making. Journal of Political Economy, 56:23–34, 1948.
[3] M. J. Condorcet et al. Essai sur l’application de l’analyse à la probabilité des décisions rendues à la pluralité des voix, volume 252. American
Mathematical Soc., 1972.
[4] V.I. Danilov and G. A. Koshevoy. Maximal condorcet domains. Order,
30(1):181–194, 2013.
[5] P.C. Fishburn. Acyclic sets of linear orders: A progress report. Social
Choice and Welfare, 19(2):431–447, 2002.
[6] Á Galambos and V Reiner. Acyclic sets of linear orders via the Bruhat
orders. Social Choice and Welfare, 30(2):245–264, 2008.
[7] B. Monjardet. Acyclic domains of linear orders: A survey. In S. Brams,
W. Gehrlein, and F. Roberts, editors, The Mathematics of Preference, Choice and Order, Studies in Choice and Welfare, page 139–160. Springer, 2009.
[8] C. Puppe. The single-peaked domain revisited: A simple global characterization. Journal of Economic Theory, 176:55 – 80, 2018.
[9] C. Puppe and A. Slinko. Condorcet domains, median graphs and the
single crossing property. Economic Theory, pages 1–34, 2016.
[10] D Romero. Variations sur l’effet Condorcet. PhD thesis, Université
Joseph-Fourier-Grenoble I, 1978.
[11] A.K Sen. A possibility theorem on majority decisions. Econometrica,
34:491–499, 1966.
[12] A. Slinko. Arrow’s single-peaked Condorcet domains. University of
Auckland Algebra and Combinatorics Seminar, 2019.
[13] A. Slinko. Condorcet domains satisfying Arrow’s single-peakedness. Journal of Mathematical Economics, 2019.