I’m somewhat interested in this mainly for nerd-sniped reasons, so take that into account :-)
If the size set of path graphs with minimal graph edit distance for our current preferences is 1, we are lucky and we don’t have to worry about making our preferences consistent in the “wrong” way (whatever that would mean). Maybe a way to conceptualize the size of that set is that is a measure of how confused our preferences are: if we already have consistent preferences, we have 0 confusion about our preferences, if the set of consistent preferences that could correspond to ours has size n! (if we have n nodes in our graph), we are maximally confused.
I’ll have to think about your last paragraph—from the data I’ve collected it seems roughly correct, so props to you :-)
I’m somewhat interested in this mainly for nerd-sniped reasons, so take that into account :-)
If the size set of path graphs with minimal graph edit distance for our current preferences is 1, we are lucky and we don’t have to worry about making our preferences consistent in the “wrong” way (whatever that would mean). Maybe a way to conceptualize the size of that set is that is a measure of how confused our preferences are: if we already have consistent preferences, we have 0 confusion about our preferences, if the set of consistent preferences that could correspond to ours has size n! (if we have n nodes in our graph), we are maximally confused.
I’ll have to think about your last paragraph—from the data I’ve collected it seems roughly correct, so props to you :-)