[EM] FBC and undefined definition (was Demorep: Technical Words

[MIKE OSSIPOFF]

Craig Carey said:



>I believe that FBC is a dud of an idea so long as it applies to a
>   single preference named the "the favorite". However, Mr Ossipoff
>   wrote about "precise language" so a few extra doubts added to the

Ok, so we can't talk about a favorite :-)  You certainly have
a right to your beliefs, but stating a belief isn't enough to
convince others that they should believe as you do.

>   ones I made earlier would not be out of place.
>
>
>
>At 16:01 07.03.00, MIKE OSSIPOFF wrote:
>  >
>  >Demorep:
>  >
>  >I don't know that any of our proposals to the public contain
>  >the technical words that you were objecting to. We all know
>  >that proposals to the public should be expressed briefly
>  >in plain language.
>  >
>  >But that doesn't mean that we shouldn't use whatever words
>  >are needed when discussing methods' relative merits here.
>  >
>  >Also, criteria can be written in precise language, available
>  >to be checked on by anyone who wants more than the plain-language
>  >statements that we'd use to tell people what a method can do,
>  >or what it won't do, or what it won't make voters do.
>  >
>  >For instance, I might tell someone that Approval will never
>  >give anyone incentive to vote a less-liked candidate over their
>  >favorite. If someone wants that in precise language, then
>  >they could be referred to a more carefully-worded statement of
>  >FBC.
>  >
>
>I have not seen any carefully worded statement of FBC.

The problem is that you haven't carefully read it. That's part
of a more general problem: You don't carefully read what you
reply to and "refute". You don't carefully check your letters
before sending them, to determine if they're accurate or if
they say something that will make sense to others.

You have yet to point to a part of the criterion whose meaning
is unclear. Yes, I used "better" to mean "which they like better".
Consider that corrected.

>---------------------------------------------------------------
>At 17:01 07.03.00, MIKE OSSIPOFF wrote: ...
>  >>At 12:23 05.03.00 , MIKE OSSIPOFF wrote:
>  >>...
>  >> >>FBC is contrived valueless overly weak rule.

No, I didn't write that. You really must start getting it straight
what I said, as opposed to what you said.

>...
>  >>At 12:23 05.03.00 , MIKE OSSIPOFF wrote:
>  >>...
>  >> >> >> >> >Favorite-Betrayal Criterion (FBC):
>  >> >> >> >> >
>  >> >> >> >> >By voting a less-liked candidate over his favorite, a voter
>  >> >> >> >> > should never gain an outcome that he likes better than any
>  >> >> >> >> > outcome that he could get without voting a less-liked
>  >> >> >> >> > candidate over his favorite.
>  >> >> >>...
>...
>  >>Can you write the idea "over" in a mathematical form?. Despite the
>  >>  use of words, I can't understand the definition of FBC (because of
>  >>  lots of problems with the wording: "over" [undefined, a  preference
>  >>  nearer the 1st?], less-liked candidate [refers to a preference
>:>  list?], "likes better" [no voter is around to comment so a preference
>  >>  list (perhaps) describes 'likes'], any [can mean either all, or
>  >>  some], favorite [must be a 1st preference or else described in
>  >>  attached notes or etc.]).

The only one of those objections that makes any sense at all
is your objection about "any". Maybe "every" would have been
less objectionable. "Every" expresses the maning that I intended.
However I'm not so sure that I agree that "any" is ambiguous there.

Conceivably you could think that it meant "Any one particular outcome,
that outcome being an outcome that he could get by..."

But the combination
"any....that..." is standard enough that I don't think anyone
but you would be in doubt about the meaning.

Anyway (Oops, I used that word again), if it will clarify the
meaning for you, replace "any" with "every".

>  >
>...
>So maybe "over" means approximately:
>   x<>y =>: "x over y [in p]" = x in tr(p,y),
>
>      (Using the "tr()" notation I used before, p is a paper, y a 
>candidate)

No, that isn't what "over" means. I doubt that you know what
your pseudomathematical diarrhea means. It's obvious to anyone
that you vote Gore over Bush if you give Gore a higher position
in a ranked ballot, or a higher point score in a nonranked ballot.
Then, if your ballot is a ranked  ballot, Gore's position is
over that of Bush in the same sense that we use the term
"ranked higher". Are you going to ask what "ranked higher" means?
And if your ballot is a nonranked ballot then your point-assignment
to Gore is numerically over your point assignment to Bush.
I could have spelled out how you vote X over Y on every type
of ballot, but the above seemed so obvious that there was no
need to waste the space or lengthen the criterion in order to
do that.

>
>What is the maximum number of papers that a voter can cast?.
>Your not defining "Better" suggests you might want that to equal the
>   number 1.

No, I didn't specify how many ballot papers a voter can cast.

It isn't clear how your problem with the meaning of "better"
relates to the number of ballots that a voter casts. Is
it necessary for every criterion to specify how many ballot
papers a voter may cast? :-)  Cast as many as you want, but try
not to get caught if you cast more than one.

>
>...
>  >... "Better" isn't undefined. It's in any dictionary of English.
>  >I don't intend to define for you every English word that I use.
>
>The dictionary meaning of the word "better" is a description of a
>   quite different item. When two different ideas/objects have the

The dictionary doesn't specify what item is referred to. It would
use a prohibitive amount of page-space to do so.

same
>   name then there is no proof or suggestion because of that, that two
>   distinct ideas/things are identical. Why refer to a dictionary?.

So you won't have to ask such stupid questions.

>
>   On how many preference lists is the "liked better" term dependent ?:
>   one or two?. This is not a "participation axiom" type rule (i.e.

For one thing "liked better" doesn't appear in the criterion
wording. It's "likes better". How many lists? I made no reference
to any lists. Is it that you object to "a voter"? If some
voter, by voting a less-liked candidate over a more-liked one,
gains an outcome that he likes better than any that he can
get without doing so, than a voter has done that, and the method
fails FBC. If you don't think that's clear from the wording, I
don't agree with you.
hat if some

>
>A question for readers, in my opinion, is: do they concur that it
>   is obvious, that their opinion matches up with Mr Ossipoff's on
>   the fact of, whether or not, the "likes better" function is:

The "likes better" function? :-) It wouldn't be that you're
pretending to be a mathematician, would it?

>   (a) dependent, or (b) independent; of the 2nd preference list, i.e.
>   the list in the state after the change ("than any outcome that he
>   could get without voting a less-liked candidate...").

For one thing, I spoke of no change.For another thing, speaking
of other ways of voting has nothing to do with what "likes better"
means. "Likes" is about liking, not voting.


>
>  >the
>  >>  preference list before or after the "voting" ? (i.e. the inserting of
>  >>  the preference, if any. If a text on any attached statement writen by
>  >>  the voter is followed, then it will 'before inserting' [or 
>"over"-ing]).

???

>  >
>  >I have no idea what all that is supposed to mean. If you don't
>  >know what it means to like one candidate better than another,
>  >then I can't help you.
>
>That is a statement that suggests to me that you think the matter
>   is simple, when in fact it is not. If you want the 'likes' of this
>   function to be simple, then some constraints will be needed (e.g.
>   1 winner, or undefined for any method except the Approval Vote).

Sorry, but the meaning of "likes" isn't dependent on the
voting system being used or discussed. I made it clear several
times that I'm talking only about methods that are intended to
choose one winner. You haven't shown that the possibility of ties
causes a meaning problem.

>   If Mr Ossipoff doesn't define "better", then correspondence could
>   perhaps take up another 27K. I presume few others will write as I

It's a safe bet, and a good thing, that few others will write as
you do. And your messages may well take up another 27K, but
they won't be answered by me.

will,
>   so Mr Ossipoff might be able to terminate the discussion on FBC without
>   having ever defined using the criteria he set out. Of course,

I've clarified the meanings that you could legitimately claim
are in doubt, by some reading.


readers
>   will be aware that I can easily have a new FBC version defined in just
>   5 lines of text.

You could, but it wouldn't be productive to use the name of
an aleady-defined criterion. Use an original name.

>
>What is the idea of the function "Better":

Better isn't a function; it's a word.

>
>Is it independent of the preference list that is in the 2nd (the
>   after) election state?. Can you admit that FBC is a mathematical
>   item at all?. Is it a function that fully ignores opinions?.

If you call liking one outcome better than another an opinion,
then FBC doesn't ignore opinions. FBC isn't a function. It's
a criterion. "
>
>The word "any" is still there. In English, sometimes it means "for
>   all", and at other times, "there exists". My opinion, is that there
>   is a real and unnecessary lack of clarity due to the use of the word
>   "any". Couldn't the definition be improved?.

If you don't like "any" substitute "every". But as I said
when you brought this up before, "any...that..." is a usage
with a standard meaning that should be familiar to you.


>Mr Ossipoff: do you want a contest where subscribers try to improve
>   it?: have it apply to multiple preferences simulaneously, etc..

Feel free to suggest changes. But if you change the meaning,
give it a different name. Here are 2 changes that get rid
of your objections, though I don't agree that my meaning was
unclear. Here's a wording that tries to clear up your
doubts about meaning:

By voting some candidate (call him "Joe") over a candidate
whom he'd rather elect than Joe, no voter should ever gain an
outcome that he likes better than every outcome that he could gain
without voting in that way.

I hope that clears it up for you. But that isn't how I'll word
the criterion when I use it.


Mike Ossipoff
______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com