[EM] Re: Simpson-Kramer definition

[Paul Kislanko]

I still say if you use that sentence on the public, nobody will know what
you mean. Least victory? Least Defeat? Just translate that sentence into
English if you want me to know what it says.

All I'm saying is most people don't talk that way and even us bourbakians
only point out that it's ambigouous. 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: election-methods-electorama.com-bounces at electorama.com 
> [mailto:election-methods-electorama.com-bounces at electorama.com
> ] On Behalf Of MIKE OSSIPOFF
> Sent: Wednesday, April 13, 2005 11:01 PM
> To: election-methods at electorama.com
> Subject: [EM] Re: Simpson-Kramer definition
> 
> Paul--
> 
> I'd said:
> 
> "The winner is the candidate whose greatest vote against him/her in a
> pairwise comparison (defeat or victory) is the least."
> 
> You say:
> 
> If there's anything that's going to keep an improvement in 
> election methods
> from being accepted by the people who have to vote for a change it is
> language like this.
> 
> I reply:
> 
> I've got news for you: I'm not proposing Simpson-Kramer to 
> the public. In 
> fact I'm not proposing Simpson-Kramer at all.
> 
> I was briefly stating Simpson-Kramer's definition. I don't know if 
> Nalebuff's and Levin's definition is different from what I 
> posted. Someone 
> could look it up, because Markus posted it some weeks ago.
> 
> For best un-ambiguity, a much wordier definition is better. 
> This time, for 
> this, I chose the brief definition, partly because it isn't a 
> proposal of 
> mine.
> 
> You continued:
> 
> I had to read that sentence three times and vote on which of the three
> interpretations was most likely the correct one.
> 
> I reply:
> 
> You forgot to tell us what your 3 interpretations are. Would 
> you like to 
> post them?
> 
> You continue:
> 
> I am not at all sure that any of my interpretations are what 
> the author
> meant.
> 
> I reply:
> 
> So let's find out. Post your 3 interpretations of my wording of 
> Simpson-Kramer's definition.
> 
> We'll find out if any of your 3 interpretations is what 
> Nalebuff & Levin 
> meant, and we'll find out if any of your 3 interpretations is 
> what I meant. 
> Of course Nalebuff and Levin aren't the author: They're the authors.
> 
> When you say that you don't understand a definition, it helps 
> if you say 
> which part of it you didn't understand. Which different 
> meanings you found, 
> in a part that you specify.
> 
> But I'm going to re-copy the wording that I posted here, and 
> then I'll 
> define it more unambiguously:
> 
> Here's what I'd posted:
> 
> "The winner is the candidate whose greatest vote against him/her in a
> pairwise comparison (defeat or victory) is the least."
> 
> Now let me try to write it more unambiguously:
> 
> (I hope that my indentations post ok, but I can't guarantee 
> that. But pay 
> attention to the "endwhile"s).
> 
> Let each candidate in turn be referred to as i.
> 
> While a particular candidate is being referred to as i:
> 
>   Let each candidate other than i, in turn, be referred to as j
> 
>   While a particular candidate is being referred to as j:
> 
>     Record the number of people who voted for j over i. Call 
> that "the [put 
> j's name here] votes
>     against number for i".
> 
> 
>   endwhile
> 
> i now has, for each of the other candidates, a votes-against 
> number labeled 
> with that other candidate's name.
> 
> Find which of those votes-against numbers of i is the 
> largest. Call it "i's 
> greatest votes against number".
> 
> endwhile
> 
> After the above has been done for each candidate in turn, 
> declare, as the 
> winner, the candidate whose greatest votes-against number is 
> less than the 
> greatest votes-against numbers of the other candidates.
> 
> [end of Simpson-Kramer instruction]
> 
> Again, I don't know whether the above is done immediately, or whether 
> Simpson-Kramer first looks for a candidate with no pairwise 
> defeats, and 
> elects him/her if s/he exists.
> 
> So you can very reasonably have two different interpretations of my 
> previously posted definition (and also of the definition 
> posted here), based 
> on the matter in the paragraph before this one.
> 
> I don't know if you'll find the Simposon-Kramer definition in 
> this posting 
> clearer than my briefer one int he previous posting. But if 
> you feel that 
> the Simpson-Kramer defintion that I stated in this posting 
> has more than one 
> interpretation, don't hesitate to say what they are.
> 
> Mike Ossipoff
> 
> _________________________________________________________________
> Express yourself instantly with MSN Messenger! Download today 
> - it's FREE! 
> http://messenger.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200471ave/direct/01/
> 
> ----
> Election-methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em 
> for list info
>