[EM] Mr. Schulze, please prove you applied some seven M.O. rules

[Craig Carey]

At 01:16 00.09.11 +0000 Monday, MIKE OSSIPOFF wrote:


>Markus wrote:
>
>>In the website http://home.pacbell.net/paielli/voting you introduce
>>7 criteria. 2 of the 7 criteria are violated by Condorcet methods.
>
>Yes, no method meets every criterion. Some of the best methods
>fail criteria met by others of the best methods.


When Markus says that 2 of the 7 criteria or Russ Paielli and Mike
Ossipoff, are met or not met, by the Condorcet method, he would be
admitting that the rules are understood by him. So I believe that
Mr Markus Schulze is true follower of Mike Ossipoff. That would fix
a problem I have which is that Mike Ossipoff will not write ever to
me and state ideas into a precise form that can be written down.

I recall that months ago Markus Schulze hoped that I might comment
further against Mike Ossipoff's presentation of falsity.

STV is a precisely written algorithmic method. It has the property that
it can be understood. Here is a page quoting STV procedures from the
UK "Electoral Reform" society. When I read that I do not see a lot of
use of unknowable information (data from Markus-Schulz spirits that
are not from the Church of England):

http://www.cix.co.uk/~rosenstiel/stvrules/index.htm

If a method and its users do not need to know of what voters "like",
Why does a rule. Not all voters will inform of their likes. But the
rules of Mike Ossipoff and understood? by Markus Schulze, can need
more to detray their silence than they might otherwise want to do.
It wasn't motivated with an aim of maximising the fullness of truth
(I got term Y removed).


>Markus wrote:
>
>>In the website http://home.pacbell.net/paielli/voting you introduce
>>7 criteria. 2 of the 7 criteria are violated by Condorcet methods.
>
>Yes, no method meets every criterion. Some of the best methods
>fail criteria met by others of the best methods.

Read those two sentences. Mike Ossipoff does not actually admit to
ever having applied his Paielli rules anywhere.

But Markus does. A problem I have is that I did not find a single rule
on the Paielli page that was well enough defined to be able to test
anything mathematical method. I suggest that Markus make a statement
about the comment "In the website ... 2 of the 7 criteria are violated
by the Condorcet methods". To save Markus some labours, I ask that he
just write about the Condorcet method itself, provided that that can
be done.

This is not a troublesome request because Mike Ossipoff's
rules make use of data that doesn't seem to be truly available, yet the
Election Methods list of Rob Lanphier has been, over months, emitting
a huge amount of seemingly nonsensical/ill-defined information on Mikes
ideas. If he got the existing definitions fixed, he could be released
to send more. Mike has too much hard core support for it to seem
reasonable to me that he should leave the list before I do. It is only
truth that we consider.

There is a possibility that the comment attributed to Markus Schulze
was fabricated or it was a blunder when written. Can Markus tell us.
The rules appear to be too ill-defined to allow them to be proven
false. Rob Lanphier allows that and has no rule against bad definition
and I need to progress under the rule that questions I ask should be
answered.

I ask Markus SChulze: did you make a totally statement to Mike
Ossipoff when you wrote:

     "2 of the 7 criteria are violated by Condorcet methods.

Others can't repair the lack of definition to allow them to test
anything. To a lesser extent that even applies to the monotonicity
definition. Sometime ago I wrote in a lot of detail to Russ and Mike
on the monotonicity definition. It is becoming apparent that the first
rule is to not correct absolute errors. I 

I think it would be helpful if Markus gave the list a couple of
examples for each Ossipoff rule. I don't want to suggest that anybody
is lying. It disappears into the lists silence (or gambling over back
scratching, or whatever it is that dominated mathematics these days).


...

>>You wrote (9 Sep 2000):
>>> Markus says that sincere voting should be rewarded.
>>
>>No. I only say that sincere voting should not be punished.

If you sincerely give us the proofs that you have applied Russ Paielli's
rules, then there is no certainty of punishment. One of the things I am
interested in, is, "are there a lot of German motive investigators".

To the extent possible Markus, please use familiar notation, i.e.
existential logic and the formulae and symbols you need to state the
ideas. The spirit hosts ideas I introduced is a new type of view. The
facts called for it. Markus Schulze was implicitly alleged to have
garnered data on sincerity. Can you also get data on what voters do in
the election hall toilets too?. Or are voters never actually sampled.
Markus may just have that info right beside him, i.e. data on voters'
likes/rankings/favourites/sincerity, for an infinite number of elections.

The methods being tested are totally mathematical. Markus once wrote on
his findings from having a book by Condorcet. Did you test all variants
Markus including those that could have been defined by and attributed
to Condorcet (as possibilities) ?. I doubt it.
Did you test the 7 rules?, or was Mike Ossipoff's statement misleading?.

Were they tested up to at least 30 candidates?. Why was the statement
that you had got past the badly-defined nature of Mike Ossipoff's
statements for brief?. Because you were writing to Mike Ossipoff?.
Mike Ossipoff didn't comment on the suggestion that at least one person
had understood at least one of his rules. This tends to suggest he does
not hold an aim of being a supreme commander in a war of confusion over
what he writes, where others need to give up or try to get more details
on the rules. One thing that would not happen is that words would be
replaced in the rules. I have proven that myself. It is not a well
understood area. Markus seems to have a special ability of getting a
lengthy reply back from Mike, and it could be putting write at the top,
and [xxxxx] declaration of having understood something that can't be
understood. The topic is as remote as it could be from the creation of
new useful rules.

People may think this msg is a little long for a short attributed
sentence by Markus Schulze. But as far as a I can tell, Markus and
Mike Ossipoff really are united in a need to avoid followable precision
and mathematical formulae. To Markus: would a formula of a method be like
a bit of paper that can be driven over if it blows onto a West German
motorway, eventually by hundreds of thousands of cars?.

A question to Mike Ossipoff: have you done any computer simulations of
your rules?. If not, why not?. In your opinion which rule is nearest
to being rejected first. I would reject monotonicity for being badly
thought out. How could you understand Mike's definition and I could not:
you have private letters from Mike Ossipoff to refer to?. By crook or 
hook, can we get that data in public, and get these rules fixed and get
the "sincerity/likes finding spirits" out of them.

Mike Ossipoff rejects truncation resistance (because he favours
fixed Condorcet methods that find the right number of winners). That
means that he positioned to be an enemy of anybody that favours STV.
It is plain that this list despises STV and all methods similar to
STV, one of which would be the ideal voting method. An ideal voting
method would would rather distant from Condorcet variants, I believe.

I request under the rules of the list that Markus Schulze write down
details showing us how he tested the Condorcet methods using the
existing versions of the Mike Ossipoff R.P.-website rules.

If I have misunderstood and there is a secret society running in this
list, where one of the secret signs is claiming to have understood
Russ Paielli's preferential voting definitions, can I get more data
on that?. I want to make sure that Rob Lanphier is not deprived of
the pleasure of not knowing about the handshakes "I read what
you wrote and understood it...."

Government departments do not send out incomprehensible letters
without fearing a lot of phone calls coming back. Yet here in this
list, to get Russ and Mike to reply or adapt their ideas is like being
stuck outside of the barbed wire of a sprawling pesticide producer's
plant.

If Markus got, got friendly, and got out, we rely up him to keep us
informed.




_________________________________________________________________________
Two winner elections?: We use Condorcet twice. Once to get the first
winner and once to get the second. Then we have two winners. 

http://www.ijs.co.nz/ifpp.htm (Politicians-and-polytopes mailing list;
STV discussion tolerated)