[EM] This list

[Craig Carey]

I sent a message to Mr Ossipoff by accident. Please disregard
  the wording in it, Mr Ossipoff. This mailing list is a vehicle
  for informing others of what seems to be completely false
  information but ill defined to a degree that is sufficient
  to quite obscure that and make the comment untrue if made.

I ask all those that want to quit to write in and ask "how
  do I unsubscribe?".


At 21:15 02.04.00 +0000, MIKE OSSIPOFF wrote:
...
 >
 >But I hope someone can tell me that there's an error in
 >this posting.

The functions defining the probability distributions are
  not precisely defined. I request that you define them.

Are data collecting procedures described?. Apparently not.

How can there be talk of probabilities but no knowledge of
  variances of moments or distributions or [Bayesian] distribution
  presumptions?. What is the variance?. Who may set the tolerances
  for the accuracy of whatever estimated data there is?. Who
  funds the councils that hold a single extra election that may
  be done just to get better data on probabilities?. I ask for the
  probability distributions. That is a request for a function
  whose integral equals the number one. Recalling that
  Mr Catchpole did do that, I request the derivation of the
  probability distributions of every single probability formula
  you've referred to and about which you still have an interest.

The Ossipoff utility theory needs data. Mr Ossipoff keeps
  writing saying what voters ought do. It is not something that
  I am following there.

I didn't understand the theory on telling voters how they should
  vote, 'utility' theory. How do they get told?. If utility theory
  is probabilistic, then are they being sampled for [opinions, or
  votes?] at the very same time they are being regarded as making
  the right or wrong vote. Do spirit observers decide when voters
  are wrong under utility theory?. Utility theory is unfixable
  just like Borda since it is linear but not piecewise linear.

The list has a problem with people leaving.

I would hint to the owner that the guidelines are not shaped to
  stamp out a problem occurring: postings that do not contain ideas
  that are real enough mathematically to allow them to be separated
  from the person stating the ideas, are being posted. I would
  say that false and/or badly defined information is being posted.

I sent a message to Mr Ossipoff accidentally. I was going to send
  no message, but I sent this instead.

Does anybody want another mailing list on preferential voting?.
This list may not get better (a hunch). A list I run would
  be concerned with polytopes and faces of boundaries, and prefer
  factual perfect accuracy to explained thinking. The last is
  best done without, but maybe this list's subscribers prefer to
  have matters explained....


G. A. Craig Carey    http://www.ijs.co.nz/ifppvote.htm