[EM] Re: Condorcet Criterion for plurality.

[MIKE OSSIPOFF]

>D -  Perhaps Mr. S and Mr. O can write to each other direct regarding
>definitions, etc. (and see if they can agree on anything jointly) and save
>the rest of us from having to delete their attacks on each other (which 
>take
>up some valuable bandwidth on the internet).
>

Demorep, Markus is proposing a different way of determining
criteria compliances, and I've asked him to specify the parts of
it that he still leaves unspecified.

This is relevant, Demorep. Markus says that the academic world
uses the system that he refers to but doesn't define. Is it
not of interest to consider Markus's claim about how the
academics determine criterion compliance? Criteria are how we
judge & compare methods. If it's true that the academic world is
using Markus's undefined system for determining criteria compliances,
then let's find out what it is.

I don't agree if you're saying that how the journal authors
determine criterion compliances is outside the scope of EM.

Maybe you should consider ER instead.

One reason why that alleged academic criterion-compliance-determining
system is of interest is: Academics sometimes take part in
method merit comparison discussions. Sometimes public discussion.
The validity of what they say is affected by the matter of what
they mean when they talk about criterion compliance. There may
come a time when it's necessary to answer an academic who's
publicly discussing method merit based on criteria compliances.

Also, the perceived validity of the academics' choice of which
criteria to honor or use is affected by how much sense their
system for applying criteria makes.

Now all I've been doing is asking Markus if he wants to define
the system that he's been referring to.

Mike Ossipoff

_____________________________________________________________________________________
Get more from the Web.  FREE MSN Explorer download : http://explorer.msn.com