[EM] Re: Markus, 16 March, '05, 0650 GMT

[MIKE OSSIPOFF]

Markus--

I replied that it cannot be said that you proposed wv
methods in general because you didn't propose a general
concept.

I reply:

But I did propose a "general concept". As I said in my previouis posting 
about this, I clearly and unmistakeably introduced and proposed wv as a way 
of measuring the strength of defeats, and advocated wv as the best way to 
measure the strength of defeats. And I told of the advantages of wv as a 
measure of defeat-strength.

Yoiu continued:

It might be true that e.g. Schulze(wv),
Tideman(wv), and Heitzig(wv) happen to satisfy some of
those criteria you considered important in 1997; but
they also violate some of these criteria; for example
they violate your "Generalized Majority Criterion" (GMC).

I reply:

You're repeating again. I already answered that. I introduced and proposed 
wv years before I defined GMC. So, try as hard as you may, you can't 
convince anyone that GMC is somehow relevant to the matter of whether or not 
I introduced wv.

You continue:

Now you claim (11 March 2005) that there was no
"justification for your [= Markus'] claim that my
criteria apply only to MinMax". You claim that the
fact that Schulze(wv), Tideman(wv), and Heitzig(wv)
violate GMC was not a feasible argument because you
don't promote GMC anymore. \

I reply:

Wrong. That wasn't the only reason I told you why GMC has nothing to do with 
the matter of whether or not my critreria apply only to MinMax. I thoroughly 
answered that subject in my previoius reply, giving you a list of reasons 
why your comments on GMC don't establish or even imply that my criteria 
apply only to MinMax (whatever MinMax is). But why don't you tell us what 
part of the wording of SFC, GSFC, WDSC, SDSC, or FBC makes them, in your 
opinion, apply only to MinMax.

But haven't you lost your subject? You were talking about the matter of 
whether or not I introduced wv, remember?

You continue:

You write (16 March 2005):
"GMC is not a criterion of mine. GMC was a criterion
of mine. But it hasn't been for a long time. As I've
said, I no longer use GMC."

However, to decide whether you really proposed the wv
Condorcet class of methods in/before 1997...

I reply:

No, I never said that I proposed wv in 1997. I said, correctly, that I 
introduced wv 1994.

You continue:

..., we have to
look at those concepts you used at that time

I reply:

...that time being 1994, and not 1997.

You continued:

...and not
at those concepts you use today. The fact that you don't
use GMC today, has nothing to do with the question which
concepts you used in/before 1997.

I reply:

...but I didn't say that the fact that I don't use GMC today has anything to 
do with the question of which concepts I used at some previous time. What I 
said is that the fact that GMC is no longer a criterion of mine has 
relevance to your claim that my criteria use the term "majority-rejected".

You've got your issues all mixed up, and you don't seem to know which issue 
you're trying to argue. You're all confused.

But I'll add that the fact that I defined GMC years after I introduced wv 
makes it difficult to ascertain why you believe that GMC is somehow relevant 
to the matter of whether I introduced wv.

But this is all repetition. You continue to repeat statements that have 
already been answered more than once.

Mike Ossipoff

_________________________________________________________________
Express yourself instantly with MSN Messenger! Download today - it's FREE! 
http://messenger.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200471ave/direct/01/