[EM] Preoccupied with coughing up blood, 'The ring and the book' (fwd)

[David Catchpole]

Apparently I'm evil incarnate.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Being in politics is like being a football coach. You have to be smart
enough to understand the game, and dumb enough to think it's important"
							-Eugene McCarthy

---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Sun, 10 Sep 2000 16:30:30 +1200
From: Craig Carey <research at ijs.co.nz>
To: David Catchpole <s349436 at student.uq.edu.au>
Subject: Preoccupied with coughing up blood, 'The ring and the book'



I saw your botch up at the EM list (stop ... about paid mathematicians),
which Robla immediately bluntly moved into investigate.  I checked the
EM archives and it seemed to me that you would be the only subject of
your call for better behaviour.






At 12:46 00.09.10 +1000 Sunday, David Catchpole wrote:
 >I just _do not get_ what Craig means by any of this. Can anyone help
 >translate Craig's response?
 >
 >PS. I suspect that an example of an "IFPP-like" method is one where-
 >
 >-you work out the borda score of each candidate
 >-exclude the candidate with the lowest Borda score
 >-etc.

It doesn't matter much that IFFP-like is ill-defined since I said it
was unimportant if methods were dissimilar.

You ignores the more important part.
Suppose inside the simplex, candidate B loses in region R.

Suppose R is a sphere.

Suppose the papers are (AB, AC, B, C) and your viewpoint is from the
B vertex. So the interior of the tetrahedron recedes. Imagine that for
every point, the you position another tetrahedron that is parallel and
that recedes in the distance at least out to the far plane of the main
'universe' tetrahedron.  That is a B-loses shadow of the point.

Then, if for each point in region R, a B-loses shadow is created, then
the B-loses shadow for R is found. The near side of R closest to the
(B) paper vertex is unchanged. The near side might be curved and the
shadow would hold receding line segments.

Region R and its shadow is what results from using a light source that
is a perpendicular triangle.


                                           |              /
      /\                                   |             /
     /  \                                 SPHERE        /
    /    \                                 |           /
   --------                                |          /
     light                                 |         /
    source                                 |        /
                                  far side of tetrahedron
                                           |      /

Can you visualise it?.
Each face of the tetrahedron represents the rule that the counts of the
papers must be positive. If one of those constraints is lost, a face
would be removed.



 >
 >I know it has a name, but I can't remember it for the moment. Maybe Craig
 >should test its results vs. his implicit IFPP method.
 >
 >On Sat, 9 Sep 2000, Craig Carey wrote:
 >
 >> At 13:25 00.09.09 +1000 Saturday, David Catchpole wrote:
 >>  >On Sat, 9 Sep 2000, Craig Carey wrote:
 >>  >> At 22:31 00.09.08 +1000 Friday, David Catchpole wrote:
 >>  >>  >On Fri, 8 Sep 2000, Craig Carey wrote:
 >> ...
 >>  >>  >> At 08:54 00.09.05 +1000 Tuesday, David Catchpole wrote:
 >>  >>  >>  >> At 14:36 00.09.04 +1000 Monday, David Catchpole wrote:
 >>  >>  >>  >>  >On Mon, 4 Sep 2000, Craig Carey wrote:
 >>  >>  >>  >>  >> At 02:30 00.09.04 +0000 Monday, s349436 at student.uq.edu.au
...


I was taken aback when I read Schulze: he said I misread Saari. What an
empty statement. I suppose under testing it would be found he had not
read what I had written. As a student representing students everywhere,
what is the position on learning a lot of contradictory ideas that prove
to be mathematical duds and appeared to be so at the start. For example,
consider Saari: do his ideas pass my idea-rule that they must retain
constraining power as the number of candidates (and/or winners) tends
towards being infinite?; No. The economist had something over the 1st
and 2nd preferences being equal and able to rotated or something. The
first will ruthlessly sacrifice the interests of the 2nd. MAybe that
wasn't an error of the author.

Saari was into geometry but not the Simplex. So a better mathematician
to name may be Ron Holzmann. I will write to him this week. He might be
interested, although I doubt it. It is nearly a decade that has passed
for him.

Mr Ossipoff words his definitions as containing the word "favorite" and
holding no reparable meaning if the limitation is pulled out, and he
writes that I am not mathematician.

What's you move now David?. What narwhale-harpoon Lanphier. He has the
beast on its tip

You don't seem to be an agent that will stir the list up. Mr Schulze
seemed to cough up a little blood of orthodoxistic opinion that
the people of the public reads the researches of the mathematicians.

I can't write much since we are united in laziness. But perhaps you
don't go so far as to prefer unity, synthesis, perfection, and a need
to give no weight to the bad in contemporary knowledge. Can you keep
this private (from the higher primates at seated at the wooden benches
of higher learning).