[EM] Blake misread the Schulze/Woodall test?; How exactly?

Craig Carey research at ijs.co.nz
Sun Nov 5 01:00:27 PST 2000

            "Cerberus was the watchdog of hell. There
             he lay chained to the gates of Acheron,
             harassing the spirits entering Hades"

Ex Internetium doc.: http://thanasis.com/cerberus.htm

At 22:41 04.11.00 -0800 Saturday, Blake Cretney wrote:
 >In response to Craig Carey,
 >I just read your posting.  I think you should organize your thoughts
 >better.  It takes a lot of work to even piece together what you're
 >trying to say, let alone find a cogent argument.  I just don't see
 >remarks like
 >> Property 3 ought be rejected too since it wrong for all elections
 >> with 0 winners.
 >as being worthy of comment.

If you want to constrain the number of elements in a set then you
have to do it explicitly. Do you try to suggest by the actual words
that you used, that whatever you feel or believe is inherent and
factual in any formula you see?.

Do Mr Blake Cretney understandings appear in formula when anybody
views the formula or statements, or is the similarly unbelievable
mathematical idea that they only arise when Mr Blake Cretney views
the methods, being advanced?. This is a dispute of the freedom of
variables. The theory is, I guess, that Mr Cretney's opinions
parachuted in and thanks to their arrival obvious meaning was shot
and buried and then I was no longer able to be understood. It is
enough to prompt people to ask why is it that the mathematical
principle that an unconstrained set could possibly be empty,
rejected?. If I, instead of Markus Schulze would write a different
mathematical statement, would there be a risk that you might write
in and tell everyone that variable t27, a set, could not take the
value {0} ?. Mr Cretney did not advance any axioms. It is really
unclear to have sound ideas of mathematics undermined with the idea
that I could not think in an organised way.

Here are the actual words. The issue includes: did Mr Shulze
hide into them some code ideas making their meaning rightly
alterable my Blake Cretney, or did Mr Cretney merely suggest a
wrong opinion in finding that paragraph 3 could not enocounter a
state where the variable definining the number of winners was 0.

The word "theorem" indicates that this is not about UK or some
country, doesn't it?. Who wants to suggest otherwise?.

At 17:58 04.11.00 +0100 Saturday, Markus Schulze wrote:
 >Dear Craig,
 >there is a paper by Woodall in which he demonstrates that
 >no preferential single-winner election method can meet the
 >following four properties simultaneously [Douglas R. Woodall,
 >"An impossibility theorem for electoral systems," Discrete
 >Mathematics, vol. 66, p. 209-211, 1987]:
 >3) if no second preferences are expressed and candidate A
 >   has a plurality of first preferences, then candidate A
 >   must be elected;
 >Which of Woodall's properties would you be prepared to see
 >not satisfied by your preferred system?
 >Markus Schulze

There is no constraint there on the number of winners is there Blake?.

Perhaps no one can understand what Blake was thinking.

There is a convention: free variables are removed with a "For All".
That applies without a hint of a problem. Doesn't it Mr Blake Cretney
and Mr Schulze?. Mr Schulze would speak to agree with Mr Cretney unless
I have written enough to bring that person to a raised grade of alertness;
I guess.

We have an implication with a "For All" on the outside and I Mr Cretney
really is saying that methods that fail to return zero winners can be
tested then he is arguing that and infinite logical conjunction (due to
the "(For All nw {nw = numbers of winners})" returns a Boolean value
when AND-ed into that was an undefined term. The problem with zero
winners is that a good candidate will not elect candidate A.


I was wrong before when I said that the term was on the left of an
implication sign. Woodall said the statement returns false and to
handle rightly else wrongly the 0 winner case may not alter the falsity
of the truth value of the statement.

 >>  From time to time, the Condorcet defender scrape off their shoes a
 >> bit of a rebuttal saying something like: you need to have very
 >> small
 >> expectations of our methods.
 >I have a web site that defends Tideman's method:
 >Mike also has written extensively in favour of Condorcet on various
 >web sites.  Of course, others write to this list.  Lots of people
 >have defended Condorcet.  You may not agree that they have done so
 >successfully, but none that I know of have tried to defend Condorcet
 >simply by saying that you must have low expectations.  What your
 >statement suggests to me is that you have no interest in our
 >arguments.  You won't read them, so why should I bother to restate
 >them.  I think you summed up your opinion when you said
 >> So much for the hypothesis that open-mindedness is desirable.
 >Blake Cretney

What is this about open mindedness?. I was clear enough: a good
method is truncation resistant and monotonic. STV followers do not
hold any principled beliefs that bar them from shifting to a method
perfectly compliant with those two, in my ideation. Interesting to
see a hint that referring to the name Mike Ossipoff($1) could prompt
you to send in a reply.

Why comment on me personally and quite the world of preferential
voting. Remember the unalterable fact is that these STV'/Condorcet
paper methods are representable as polytopes functions based over
operators: "and", "or", "<", "There Exists", and "For All".

Obviously criticising me as being closed minded is another area that
needs a skilled hand or it will fail. Blake wrote "your statement
suggests to me is that you have no interest in our arguments." Blake
didn't make an argument, did you Blake.

Blake didn't find an argument. This seems to be more about Blake's
lack of knowledge of mathematics. Perhaps Blake could tell us if he
went to a university, or just lists the full set of missing constraints
on the variables.

 >trying to say, let alone find a cogent argument.  I just don't see
 >remarks like
 >> Property 3 ought be rejected too since it wrong for all elections
 >> with 0 winners.
 >as being worthy of comment.

How many missing constraints on variables are there Blake?.
Anything else missing from Mr Schulze's statement?.

You see, how can it essentially be true that you are disagreeing with
mere mathematical convention on there being no constraints?, when to
add such constraints can be very detailed. Lightly following you
opinion possibly out of some unexplained aim to seek meaning has led
to a very clear question:

    REQUEST [A.1] to Mr BLAKE CRETNEY, Dated 5 November 2000:

    I request under the rules of the list[$2], this:

       List all the constraints that must apply to Mr Markus Schulze's
       statement but which are simply not there.

    Clarify the definition only and do not seek to repair it.

Sorry, but to make use of Rob Lanphiers' rules, I need to claim that
I should have you in a mode where you will try to understand me. Will
you do that?. If you will not then I will write to the list owner and
inform that human that I am not gaining your compliance. Suppose Markus
Schulze was an android: can his writings still be ever so subtly altered.
Either I am wrong about the zero winner topic or Mr Cretney was elliptic.
It will clarified very soon when the easy questions are answered.
This all has nothing to do with Dr Woodall's original document I much


A voting theoreticians wants to say there can't be zero winners.
Theories need to be down to earth do they?; usually >= 1 winner, B.C.?.

     "My guide, spreading his palms, took up earth;
      and, with full fists, cast it into [Cerberus']
      ravening gullets ...

      [Cerberus] is much delighted in al things done
      wickedly and mischievously"

More information about the Election-Methods mailing list