Pattanaik and Peleg's 'Regularity' is not be

[David Catchpole]

A formalism is the strcture in which the exposition is put (couched). For
instance, in Quantum Physics, the formalism most often applied is the
Dirac formalism, which is the one with Bras and Kets, but other formalisms
are also useful.

Really, Craig, confusing (dementing?) references to blue birds and
references to some sort of silent majority (which, by the way, has had
less to say in support of yourself than of me ;) ) isn't going to win any
arguments. Rather, it infuriates me and does nothing to demonstrate nous
on your part.

On Tue, 21 Dec 1999, Craig Carey wrote:

> 
> >You need to couch any disproof of regularity's usefulness in a
> >probabilistic formalism- that is, you have to actually consider
> >probabilistic, not deterministic functions.
> 
> The statment made there appears to be ill formed.
> What does this mean:
>  (1) "You need" [1 word proof],
>  (2) "couch" [means be imprecise?, and excludes the 2 candidate
>       FPTP formula "aw=True <==> 1=Prob(aw=True)": no need to fold
>       that little formula in a collapsing couch],
>  (3) "regularity" [the single definition defined in two places],
>  (4) "usefulness" [that excludes methods like STV and FPTP since
>       not probabilistic, but 2 candidate FPTP is included given that it
>       can be probabilistic. Would a useful method applied to only 3
>       papers: AB, B, C;  have a broken divide between B & C wins
>       regions?. Regularity is not useful]
>  (5) "you have to" [Why should readers have to construct a couched
>       proof of an absence of a disproof of a not-useful [regularity
>       compliant and probabilistic] useful idea?],
>  (6) "functions" [The functions in Catchpole Regularity never got
>       defined. Mr Catchpole conceded that that was true.].
> 
> 
> > . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A good start would be to rock
> >on down to wherever and pick up books on-
> ...
> 
> A strange aspect to Mr Catchpole's evasive illusion of many seemingly
>  totally invalid and unexplained assertions, and the assesing of
>  methods by considering FPTP dictators analogues ... is how the
>  definition of "regularity" seemed to never rise to a significance that
>  it actually precisely referred to in the lengthy commentray about it.
> 
> Some definitions are obviously right until others prove them false?.
> 
> Mr Catchpole expositions have closed the stone lid on another field of
>  knowledge, and there is a need now as never before for advances in
>  voting theory.
> 
> The azure blue bird flew to the east, after the setting sun, as five
>  truth religious truth seekers walked [one way or the other]. A special
>  acknowledgement to the silent readers who never write.
> 
> 
> Craig Carey 
> 
> 

-------------------------------------------
Nothing is foolproof given a talented fool.