[EM] Markus--Who introduced SSD to EM?

[MIKE OSSIPOFF]

Markus--

You say:

I proposed that heuristic for the Schulze method that uses Schwartz sets
in 1998:

http://lists.electorama.com/htdig.cgi/election-methods-electorama.com/1998-August/001958.html

I comment on that:

What is a "potential winner"? What is the stopping rule? You suggest that it 
stops when there's just one potential winner. What if the Schwartz set 
consists of 2 candidates with no defeats, in a pairwise tie? Does the 
proecedure stothen or not?

Don't bother answering, because your next link is to a better definition.

You continue:

http://lists.electorama.com/htdig.cgi/election-methods-electorama.com/1998-November/002771.html

I reply:

This definition is better. It's a definition of CSSD, which is equivalent to 
BeatpathWinner.

You continue:

You now claim that you "introduced SSD to EM" in 2000.

I reply:

Correct.

You continue:

But not only
that the definition of "your" heuristic looks suspiciously like my
definition of 1998.

I reply:

You mean your definitions, because you post two links to two different 
definitions.

My SSD definition certainly doesn't look like your 1st definition that you 
link to. My SSD definition is like your 2nd definition, but with a different 
stopping rule.

You can say that you suspect that your definition gave me the idea for SSD, 
but that's irrelevant. SSD is not CSSD. I didn't say that I introduced CSSD 
on EM before you did. I said that I introduced SSD on EM.

As I said, your 2nd definition is a definition of CSSD. That is not SSD.

Now, as a matter of fact, your definition didn't give me the idea for SSD. 
I'd noticed it, but I hadn't really read it. For instance, when you referred 
to the Schwartz set, I thought that you meant some sort of different 
Schwartz set defined according to BeatpathWinner results. I mistakenly 
believed that about your CSSD posting because I didn't actually read the 
definition, but only glanced at it. So, not having read it, and therefore 
with no idea what count rule it described, I can say that SSD wasn't based 
on your posted definition of CSSD.

Where did SSD come from? In individual e-mail, Steve Eppley suggested a 
method that successively drops the weakest defeat among the smallest set of 
candidates that is unbeaten from without.

That's the Schwartz set when there are no pairwise ties, because, under 
those conditions there's only one innermost unbeaten set.

So, to cover situations with pairwise ties,  I suggested changing it to: 
"Successively drop the weakest defeat among the members of the Schwartz set, 
based only on undropped defeats."

That's why I say that SSD was a collaboration.

Steve supplied the idea. I supplied the Schwartz set.

That's the brief definition. The explicit definition is:

1. If any one or more candidates is/are unbeaten, they win and the count 
ends.

2. Otherwise, calculate the Schwartz set, based only on undropped defeats.

3. Drop the weakest defeat among the candidates in that set. Go to 1.

[end of SSD definition]

You continue:

You also admitted in that mail that you know my
method and that you are aware that "SSD is equivalent to Schulze's
method":

I reply:

We' ve recently been all over that. I won't repeat that argument, but, to 
summarize the conclusion that we reached recently, I admitted that I was 
incorrect when I said that SSD is equivalent to BeatpathWinner. CSSD, but 
not SSD, is equivalent to BeatpathWinner. And I admitted that I was also 
mistaken when I thought that "Schulze's method" means the method that I call 
"BeatpathWinner". I admitted those two errors that were in those earlier 
postings.
0
Therefore, it cannot be said that "SSD is an Ossipoff method".

I reply:

You're right. SSD is an Eppley-Ossipoff method.

You continue:

By the way: The term "beatpath winner" has been introduced by
you in 2000 as a synonym for the Schulze method. You wrote:

>I refer to the method that's been known as "Schulze's method",
>and which I'll sometimes call "Beatpath Winner".

I reply:

We' ve recently been all over that. I won't repeat that argument, but, to 
summarize the conclusion that we reached recently,  I admitted that I was  
mistaken when I thought that "Schulze's method" means the method that I call 
"BeatpathWinner". I admitted those two errors that were in those earlier 
postings.

You continue:

Therefore, your claim that "'Schulze's method' doesn't mean
BeatpathWinner" is false by your own definition.

I reply:

But shouldn't you be the one who says what "Schulze's method" means? By your 
definition of Schulze's method  in recent postings, Schulze's method most 
definitely does not mean BeatpathWinner.

Yes, you said that BeatpathWinner is an instance of a broad class of methods 
that you define as Schulze's method. That means that "Schulze's method" does 
not mean BeatpathWinner.

Mike Ossipoff

_________________________________________________________________
Don’t just search. Find. Check out the new MSN Search! 
http://search.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200636ave/direct/01/