[EM] Criteria reply

[Markus Schulze]

Dear Mike Ossipoff,

this is what the EM archives say:

   In your 15 Feb 2000 mail, you discussed the Schulze method.
   In your 18 Feb 2000 mail, the term "Schwartz Sequential Dropping"
   (SSD) was used for the very first time. In that mail, you wrote
   that "SSD is equivalent to Schulze's method". In that mail, you
   also wrote: "The defeats in the Schwartz set are the only ones
   that are really in conflict for choosing a winner. 'Sequential
   Dropping' (SD) could unnecessarily solve a bottom cycle, which
   is why I said that it's less elegant than Schulze."

Therefore, the EM archives clearly state (1) that you knew my method
when you proposed SSD and (2) that you knew that SSD _is_ my method.

The last sentence ("SD could unnecessarily solve a bottom cycle,
which is why I said that it's less elegant than Schulze.") even
suggests that you already knew that heuristic for the Schulze method
that uses Schwartz sets, because that heuristic that uses paths finds
a complete ranking of all candidates and therefore also solves bottom
cycles, while only that heuristic that uses Schwartz sets only finds
a winner and therefore ignores bottom cycles. This interpretation
is supported by the fact that, in your 21 Feb 2000 mail, you wrote:
"I recommend SSD, SD, DCD, or Schulze. Schulze doesn't have the
obvious natural motivation & justification that the others in that
list have." Thus, in your 21 Feb 2000 mail in which you explicitly
wrote that you used that heuristic for the Schulze method that uses
paths, you got to the conclusion that "Schulze" didn't have the
"obvious natural motivation and justification" of SD while, in your
18 Feb 2000 mail in which you didn't write which heuristic for the
Schulze method you used, you got to the conclusion that "Schulze" is
more elegant than SD. The only possible interpretation is that in
your 18 Feb 2000 mail you had a different heuristic for the Schulze
method in mind than in your 21 Feb 2000 mail. But the only other
heuristic for the Schulze method that was known at that time was
that heuristic that uses Schwartz sets. Therefore, the EM archives
suggest that, when you proposed SSD on 18 Feb 2000, you also knew
that heuristic for the Schulze method that uses Schwartz sets.

You now claim that, when you proposed SSD, you mistakenly believed
that the term "Schulze method" only referred to that heuristic for
the Schulze method that uses paths. Therefore, you claim credit for
this method. You wrote that "SSD is an Ossipoff method" and that
those who promote this method without your explicit permission
don't have "any pride or self-respect" (14 May 2005).

However, your "reply" is quite irrelevant because of the following
reasons:

1. You are the only one who claims that the underlying heuristic
   is a part of a method, that when someone wants to promote a
   method then he has to concentrate on only one heuristic, and
   that for each heuristic separately it has to be proven which
   criteria it satisfies. Surprisingly, the Schulze method is the
   only method where you claim that the underlying heuristic is a
   part of the method. You claim that we have to differ strictly
   e.g. between that heuristic that uses paths ("beatpath method",
   "beatpath winner", "path voting", "path winner") and that
   heuristic that uses Schwartz sets ("Schwartz sequential dropping",
   "cloneproof Schwartz sequential dropping") and that, when someone
   wants to promote this method, then he must use one and only one
   heuristic to motivate this method and that he must also use the
   same heuristic to prove its properties.

   Actually, if you hadn't introduced your theory, that the
   underlying heuristic is a part of a method, then this mailing
   list wouldn't even have wasted any time discussing the different
   heuristics for the Schulze method; we wouldn't have introduced
   different names for the different heuristics for the Schulze
   method; we wouldn't have discussed which heuristic for the
   Schulze method is the best one; and we wouldn't have discussed
   which heuristic should be used when we promote this method. We
   would have simply used each time that heuristic for the Schulze
   method that is the most suitable for what we want to show in
   this very moment; that's the same we do when we discuss e.g.
   Tideman's ranked pairs method or the Simpson-Kramer MinMax
   method. Surprisingly, even you don't follow your theory
   consequently because when you motivate this method you usually
   use that heuristic that uses Schwartz sets and when you want
   to prove that this method satisfies e.g. monotonicity you use
   that heuristic that uses paths.

   Therefore, I claim that the sole purpose of your theory, that
   the underlying heuristic is a part of a method, is your hopeless
   attempt to claim that you "devised" a new method. Your attempt
   is "hopeless" because also that heuristic for the Schulze method
   that uses Schwartz sets had already been proposed by me in 1998.
   However, I didn't introduce a name for that heuristic for the
   Schulze method that uses Schwartz sets. Why didn't I introduce
   a name for this method? I didn't introduce a name because
   nobody, except for Mike Ossipoff, uses that theory that the
   underlying heuristic is a part of a method. What did you, Mike
   Ossipoff, believe was the reason why I didn't introduce a name
   for that heuristic for the Schulze method that uses Schwartz
   sets?

2. You have been pointed several times to the fact that the term
   "Schulze method" refers to a _method_ and not to a _heuristic_
   for a method. Each time, you acknowledged this, wrote that you
   made this error because you mistakenly believed this or that,
   and then you continued making this error. That's why I say that
   you use your claim, that you hadn't fully understood the Schulze
   method, as an argument for claiming credit for this method.

3. Not having understood something is not something someone can
   claim credit for. You want to be praised for not having fully
   understood the Schulze method. Well, you had undertood the
   Schulze method sufficiently to observe that "SSD is equivalent
   to Schulze's method" when you proposed SSD.

*******************************************************************

In your last mail, you used your claim, that you hadn't fully
understood the Schulze method, 4 times as an argument for
claiming credit for this method.

#1
> I was completely mistaken about what "Schulze's method" means.
> I mistakenly thought that "Schulze's method" means the method
> that I call BeatpathWinner.

#2
> At that time I believed that "Schulze's method" meant the method
> that I call "BeatpathWinner".

#3
> At the time you speak of, I mistakenly believed that Schulze's
> method meant BeatpathWinner.

#4
> I was completely mistaken about what Schulze's method meant.
> I thought that it meant BeatpathWinner.

*******************************************************************

You wrote (19 May 2005):

> At the time that SSD was devised, and when Steve proposed
> the BeatpathWinner Criterion, I wasn't on the list.

I wrote (23 May 2005):

> In your 19 May 2005 mail and in your 22 May 2005 mail,
> you referred to the "BeatpathWinner Criterion". But nobody has
> ever proposed a "BeatpathWinner Criterion". Therefore, it
> isn't quite clear whether "BeatpathWinner Criterion" refers to
> "Beatpath Criterion" or to "BeatpathWinner winners" (= to the
> "Schulze Criterion").

You wrote (23 May 2005):

> I have referred to Steve Eppley's Beatpath Criterion (BC).
> There is no BeatpathWinner Criterion, or at least not one
> that I have heard of. Markus, I try to go on the assumption
> that everyone deserves the respect of a reply. In your case,
> that's a mistake, and a big waste of time. You don't deserve
> a reply. If you want to find out why that is, then read my
> repies to you. In those replies, I explain what's wrong with
> your postings. Those are the reasons why you don't deserve
> a reply. Replying to someone is a matter of basic respect.
> It's just that you don't deserve that basic respect.
> I won't waste any more time replying to you.

Sorry, but you used the term "BeatpathWinner Criterion"
in your 19 May 2005 mail and in your 22 May 2005 mail.
In your 23 May 2005 mail, you admitted that nobody has
ever proposed a "BeatpathWinner Criterion". So why do
you feel offended that I asked you whether you meant
"Beatpath Criterion" or "BeatpathWinner winners"?

Markus Schulze