Request for Forest Simmons on 1+ candidate geometry (was Re:[EM] Correction. Big CS fault?

[Dave Ketchum]

On Sat, 28 Dec 2002 20:18:53 +1300 Craig Carey wrote:

> 
> At 02\12\27 22:38 -0500 Friday, Elisabeth Varin/Stephane Rouillon wrote:
> 
>> Craig --
>>
>> I will never understand what you write if I cannot even start
>> from the same place. In the following example, I see
>> 13 "papers" as you say, 4 "candidates" (namely A,B,C,D) and 4 different
>> kinds of ballots or "positions" as said Forest (namely ABCD, BDAC, 
>> CDAB , DBCA)
>> Am I right?
>>
>> Steph.
>>
>>>
>>>  >5 ABCD
>>>  >4 BDAC
>>>  >3 CDAB
>>>  >1 DBCA
>>>
>>> What suppose that there are 5 paper and 6 candidates.
>>
> 
> 
> This seems to be only about the default meaning of a term that is using
> less words than are needed to get its meaning pinned down. So the thread
> is a bad starting point for an argument over the correctness of implying
> readers must produce their own wrong restrictions when interpreting bad
> English of others.
> 
Whose "bad English"?

All of us writing to this reflector presumably claim to be writing English:
     Most might more accurately be labeled "Americanish".
     You are a minority, apparently writing "NewZealandish" - OFTEN having 
meanings for words that differ from what the rest of us use and expect.  
Since we do not have NewZealandish dictionaries, nor enough need to cause 
us to buy such, we about have to ask you to translate when we discover 
another word, such as "paper", that differs between the languages.

This thread is a GOOD starting point, for it has exposed a problem with the 
word "paper".  Thinking of the above example:  There could be a stack of 
forms, printed for use in this election.  Thirteen voters each take a form 
and vote by filling in their choices.  Sort the filled in forms and there 
are 4 different kinds.

You use the word "paper" to say something about this - apparently 
NewZealandish for it does not fit as Americanish.
     Guessing at the meaning, based on your earlier posts and on the 
Americanish definition of "paper", we assume there are 13 in the example.
     Now you tell us there are 4 "papers" - we are to count kinds of forms, 
not quantity - useful clarification, but one you owe us now that the 
problem has been exposed.

Remaining question:  What do we have 13 of, since that is not papers?
> 
> You seem to have 13 be the number that is found by counting the sum of
> all the ballot papers' weights.
> 
> The word "papers" is able to refer to more than one idea:
> 
> (1) the set of papers, with papers being something or other. Anyway, this
>   is not a number;
> 
> (2) the number of kinds of papers, which is the meaning I had
> 
> (3) the number of papers when there is one paper each [that's ill-defined]
> 
> (4) the total number of papers, i.e. the sum of their weights
> 
> (5) definition (4) but with a constraint that the number is undefined when
>     some of that ballot papers are negative.
> 
> 
> I take meaning of (1) by default and if a number is returned then (2).

What is missing is why readers should make the same assumption as you.
> 
> I presume it is very unclear to readers where the not-understanding Mr R
> is over meanings, (3),(4) and (5).
> 
> For example, how many "papers" under your ideas, has this election got ?:
> 
>  (ABCD) 5 +sqrt(7)/1000
>  (BDAC) 4
>  (CDAB) 3
>  (DBCA) -1
> 
This reads as nonsense - unless you attach a definition that gives it meaning.
> 
> I should not have to respond to questions as simple as this one that Mr R
> sent.
> 
> 
> Craig Carey

-- 
  davek at clarityconnect.com    http://www.clarityconnect.com/webpages3/davek
   Dave Ketchum    108 Halstead Ave, Owego, NY  13827-1708    607-687-5026
              Do to no one what you would not want done to you.
                    If you want peace, work for justice.

----
For more information about this list (subscribe, unsubscribe, FAQ, etc), 
please see http://www.eskimo.com/~robla/em