[EM] Blake Cretney: Can you prove this?

[Markus Schulze]

Dear Blake,

Mike wrote (3 Oct 2000):
> I advocated Smith//PC because of Smith and the criteria that go
> with Smith, in addition to SFC & WDSC. GSFC & Full SDSC compliance
> weren't among my reasons for advocating Smith//PC, because
> Smith//PC doesn't offer that. Smith//PC, as I said, and as I
> thought that you knew, doesn't meet GSFC and doesn't strictly meet
> SDSC. Markus, now you're being asinine again. I've repeatedly said
> that I prefer Tideman(wv) & SSD because they comply with GSFC &
> SDSC. I'm not sure what your game is, except that it's more than
> a little silly.

Could you please demonstrate that Smith//MinMax(wv) fails and
Tideman(wv) meets SDSC as Mike suggests?

Markus Schulze
schulze at sol.physik.tu-berlin.de
schulze at math.tu-berlin.de
markusschulze at planet-interkom.de