[EM] 4/18/01 reply to Markus

[MIKE OSSIPOFF]

Markus said:

you wrote (17 Apr 2001):
>For another thing, Markus had been exhibiting some of Don Davison's
>traits, repeating arguments that I'd questioned, instead of answering
>my simple question. On one occasion that was about his claim that
>it isn't true that the usual Condorcet Criterion definitions are
>either met by Plurality, or by nothing.  To bring that out, I'd
>asked about his Beatpath GMC in that regard. He started describing
>a new way of applying criteria, and I asked him if, thereby,
>Plurality meets Beatpath GMC & Condorcet's Criterion. No answer.
>I asked him if he uses different rules for applying criteria to
>different methods. No answer, just repetition of the arguments that
>I'd questioned.

I suggested that all methods and all criteria should be defined
on the (not necessarily sincerely) reported von Neumann-Morgenstern
utilities of the voters and that the used election method takes
from these reported utilities that information that it needs to
calculate the winner. This is a widely used concept to compare
election methods that were otherwise defined on different inputs.
>From the mathematical point of view it is virtually impossible to
compare methods that cannot be applied to the same input.

I reply:

Wrong. Methods have different inputs, and all of my criteria
are defined for and give pass or fail results for all methods.

You're repeating. I don't want to start a repetition of the
discussion. I refer you to my replies in the archives. This discussion
took place around Labor Day (early September) of 2000.

Markus continues:

I explained why plurality violates the Condorcet criterion and
beat-path GMC.

I reply:

No you didn't. I repeatedly asked you if Plurality & Approval
pass those criteria, by your method of applying criteria, and
if so or if not, then how so. I asked you if you used different
rules to apply criteria to different methods. Instead of answering
these questions, you kept repeating the same statements.

If anyone is interested they can check the archives for early
September, 2000 or thereabouts.

Markus continues:

But then you began to bombard me with insults and
unwarranted attacks. You wrote that this concept was "dishonest,"
"sloppy," "shabby," "bizarre," "funky," "absurd," "faulty," "silly,"
"incorrect," "incomplete," "incoherent," "poor," "pointless,"
"contradictory," "undefined," "odd," "vague" and "useless"
"garbage" and "mumbojumbo" and that those who use this concept were
"barking," "confused" and "desparately hopping" "fruitcakes" and
"head-up-the-ass academics."

Yes, your postings were all of those things. You never actually
defined your concept, or answered simple questions about it, like
if Approval & Plurality pass certain criteria, by your way of
applying criteria, and if so or if not then why. And whether you
use different rules to apply criteria to different methods.

Markus continues:

In so far as your mails contained only
insults and no new questions

I reply:

My e-mails contained questions that were new when I asked them,
but which were far from new eventually, because I asked them many
times without getting an answer.

Markus continues:

By the way: Very recently Rob LeGrand simulated utilities and
applied different election methods to these utilities. You didn't
have any problems understanding his simulations. Why do you have
problems when I suggest this but not when Rob LeGrand suggests this?

I reply:

I have no idea what connection you're suggesting there is between
Rob's simulations and your undefined criterion-applying rules.

Rob applied the same simulation procedure to different methods.
He told us the results with the various methods. You never defined
your procedure. You never told if Approval or Plurality pass those
criteria, and how you apply your procedure to those methods. You
never told if you use different rules for applying criteria to different
methods.


******

Markus continues:

You wrote (17 Apr 2001):
>And before that, it was about his attempts to find fault with
>some of my & Steve's criteria. I admit that I became impatient with
>his fallacious arguments, his claims that WDSC is ambiguous, when
>the only ambiguity was in Markus's notion of what it means to pass
>a criterion.

Your definition of WDSC looked as follows:
>If a majority of all the voters prefer A to B, then they should
>have a way of voting that will ensure that B cannot win, without
>any member of that majority voting a less-liked candidate over a
>more-liked candidate.

Does that mean?:

   If a majority of the voters strictly prefers A to B then
   --independently on how the other voters vote-- there is always a
   way of voting such that B doesn't win, without any member of that
   majority voting a less-liked candidate over a more-liked candidate.

Or does that mean?:

   If a majority of the voters strictly prefers A to B then
   there is always a way of voting such that --independently on how
   the other voters vote-- B doesn't win, without any member of that
   majority voting a less-liked candidate over a more-liked candidate.

Neither. You didn't specify for whom there's a way of voting that
will achieve that. So that's my answer. I meant neither of those.
You can put "independently on how the other voters vote" where you
want to. Did my wording say anything about dependence on how others
vote? It didn't? Then I'd say that you may put "independently on how
the other voters vote" anywhere you want to. Or you can leave that
unnecessary phrase out, as I did. Since I didn't say anything about
how the others vote, and since I said that given a certain premise
a certain requirement must be met, then any conditions that isn't
in the criterion's premise is not part of the criterion's premise.

If you had mathematical training like Blake, I wouldn't have to
explain that to you. :-)

Now, if you have any more questions about those discussions, I
refer you to the archives.

Mike Ossipoff


_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com