[EM] Proper use of mathematics

[Anthony Simmons]

>> Blake had referred to mathematically-trained people. If,
>> as you suggested, you identify yourself as such a person,
>> then these postings of yours say something about how
>> reliably we can be assured that what a mathematically-
>> trained person says is meaningful & valuable.

I put a copy of this first because I personally consider this
the most instructive part of your message.  It is an attempt
to disguise a personal attack, so I figure the appropriate
thing to do with it is to wave it in the open where everyone
can see it.

But I will answer it.  Did you consider what I said about
personal attacks and namecalling meaningful and valuable?  I
did.  I still do.

Nevertheless, I do see substantial improvement.  Keep it up.

Now, on to other stuff . . .

>> From: MIKE OSSIPOFF
>> Subject: Re: Anthony on mathematics & logic

>> Anthony said:

>> On whether Richard's diagram shows something of interest
>> to voters:  I no longer even recall the details of
>> Richard's argument.  What I do recall is that it concerned
>> how many votes have to be moved, and how far they have to
>> be moved, in order to create a configuration that
>> qualifies as a win.

>> I reply:

>> IRV arguments too concern the moving of votes, to create
>> what qualifies as a win. IRV also minimizes the distances
>> that the votes are moved, in terms of rank positions in
>> the voter's ranking.

>> Everyone who argues for a voting system talks about the
>> considerations that he considers important. Maybe, to
>> Richard, it's important to define some sort of space, and
>> consider votes as being moved in it, and judging the
>> distance that the votes are moved in that space. Fine. As
>> I said, I don't deny that that's important to Richard ,
>> and maybe to you. You aren't wrong. Standards are
>> individual and subjective.

Ah, you see, you're redefining what Richard said, and
claiming that what Richard was talking about was that it was
important to define a space, blah, blah.  So I keep
explaining that that isn't what he said, and then I try to
help you understand that, and then you complain that I'm
repeating.  Of course, you keep repeating the mistake over
and over, and then you're complaining if I repeat the
correction.

No, Richard was not talking about the importance of the
space.  The space is only a picture of what was important.

This is the crux of the problem.  If Richard wants to explain
it again, maybe that will solve it.  Otherwise, it will go
unsolved, and you will just go on believing that to Richard,
it's important to define some sort of space, and consider
votes as being moved in it, and judging the distance that the
votes are moved in that space.  But I don't expect him to
explain it again.

>> Anthony continues:

>> Thus, Richard not only dealt with the overwhelming concern
>> of voters -- how their votes are reflected in the outcome
>> --but he even quantified his argument, and offered proof.

>> I reply:

>> You see, you're repeating again. I had just answered that
>> statement in my previous posting.

Well, that's the important point -- Richard quantified
something and proved it (sort of).  I think it's a bad idea
to argue with it.

>> Advocates of any method, when applying their own personal
>> standards, will talk about how people's votes are
>> reflected in the outcome. IRV advocates, Margies, and
>> Borda advocates talk about that, for instance.

Only, this time, Richard didn't just make the claim.  He
showed how it was correct.  I understand that a lot of people
aren't going to follow what he said.  That's understandable.

>> Obviously any voter would agree that the outcome should
>> reflect voters' votes. Richard agrees with the voters on
>> that, and that's very nice.

>> But what you keep missing is that voters haven't said that
>> they have any interest in Richard's notion of the way in
>> which the outcome should reflect voter's votes. Maybe I'd
>> better explain this to you: There are innumerable ways in
>> which an outcome can reflect voters' rankings. That's
>> because there are innumerable possible rank counts. And
>> there are many proposed ones. So what could be sillier
>> than telling us that Richard answers voters' concerns
>> because he talks about how the outome reflects voters'
>> votes, in terms of how he thinks it should, without citing
>> any evidence that appreciable numbers of voters share
>> Richard's measure of how well an outcome reflects voters'
>> votes, or that that measure speaks to a specific concern
>> expressed by voters. Richard & most voters agree that the
>> outcome should reflect voters' votes? Meaningless,
>> useless, ridiculous.

That's silly.  We've all heard all sorts of things on this
conference about all sorts of criteria that the average voter
couldn't even understand if it were explained to him.  To
claim that the average voter cares about those things is
absurd.  He couldn't understand them and he doesn't want to.

But none of your objection relates to what Richard was
saying.  What Richard was dealing with was the natural
metric.  It cannot be dismissed as arbitrary, the way you
attempt to.

>> I'd said:

>> >>By the way, are you one of the mathematically-trained people that Blake
>> >>referred to, the ones whose words are especially valid? :-)

>> Richard replied:

>> Accounting is training.  Mathematics is education.

>> I reply:

>> I should explain to you that I was using Blake's term,
>> facetiously.

I should explain to you that the part about how I write haiku
in Fortran was -- yes, believe it or not -- it was facetious.

>> Blake had referred to mathematically-trained people. If,
>> as you suggested, you identify yourself as such a person,
>> then these postings of yours say something about how
>> reliably we can be assured that what a mathematically-
>> trained person says is meaningful & valuable.

>> Mike Ossipoff