[EM] Markus's debate about what I allegedly said (Who but Markus cares?)

[Markus Schulze]

Dear Mike,

you wrote (17 Dec 2003):
> Wrong. I don't call that the Floyd algorithm.

I wrote (17 Dec 2003):
> You do. You call that the Floyd algorithm
> (http://electionmethods.org/CondorcetSSD.py):
>
> > Determine "beatpath" magnitudes array using the Floyd Algorithm:
> > Def[i,j] will be the maximum beatpath magnitudes array. The i,j
> > entry is the greatest magnitude of any beatpath from i to j. A
> > beatpath's magnitude is the magnitude of its weakest defeat.

You wrote (17 Dec 2003):
> Wrong again. You aren't being entirely clear with us about exactly
> what you mean by"that". Perhaps you're confused about what you mean.
>
> You posted a little fragment of a Python program. And, in that fragment,
> some of the lines weren't even complete. You said I called that the Floyd
> algorithm. I replied that I have never called that line-truncated fragment
> anything. Did i call the Python program from which you got that fragment
> the Floyd algorithm? That's another matter. I didnt call your poorly-copied
> fragment anything, including the Floyd algorithm.

I wrote (18 Dec 2003):
> In so far as I gave a concrete quotation where you call your implementation
> "Floyd algorithm", how can you still claim that I misquoted you?

You wrote (18 Dec 2003):
> Idiot, why don't you read the quoted passage above, from my e-mail. Did I
> deny that I'd called my implementation the Floyd algorithm? The only thing
> that I denied having called "the Floyd algorithm" was your poorly-copied,
> line-truncated fragment of a Python program. You had posted that fragment
> and said that I called it the Floyd algorithm.

I wrote (18 Dec 2003):
> You are the idiot because you see no contradiction between the fact that
> you call your implementation "Floyd algorithm" and the fact that you have
> to admit that your Python program nowhere uses the Floyd algorithm.

You wrote (19 Dec 2003):
> Wrong. I don't call my implementation the Floyd algorithm. I made it as 
> clear as possible for you that I no longer call it that. I said that I'm
> going to ask Russ to delete that name from the website. Markus, does it
> occur to you that most of what you say isn't true?  Doesn't that bother
> you at all?
>
> Yes, I had previously called my implementation the Floyd algorithm. I
> carefully explained to you how that came about, and I'm not going to repeat
> it again for  you. But I made it clear that I no longer call it the Floyd
> algorithm.
>
> List members: In case you're new to this list, this is what Markus does.
> He'll latch on to some false claim about what someone said, and then he'll
> keep on re-asserting it, with more false statements in each new posting.
> If I keep replying to him, he'll go on like this for months. February
> will arrive and Markus will still be trying to argue that I claim that my
> implementation is the Floyd algorithm. Does that sound silly? Does it sound
> like a reallly stupidly trivial thing to be wasting people's time, and our
> archive space about? Sure, but apparently Markus really has nothing else to
> do. Evidently Markus is completely without a life.
>
> List members are probably already getting tired of this stupid debate, which
> will go on for as long as I reply to Markus. He isn't really saying anything
> that deserves a reply, and so you'll be glad to hear that this will be my
> last reply to his sily debate in this thread. Typically Markus will then
> send a few more messages, but when he doesn't get a reply he'll quit. When I
> don't reply, that doesn't mean that Markus has said something irrefutable.
> It merely means that I'm no longer wasting my time on Markus.
>
> Markus, you see, apparently doesn't read the messages that he replies to.
> I've been repeating (but to no avail) that now I don't  claim to know what
> the Floyd algorithm is, and nor do I care.

The problem with you is that you are unable to admit that you have made
a mistake (here: claiming that you have implemented the Floyd algorithm)
without bombarding with insults that person who pointed to this mistake.
Why are you unable to say something like?: "Yes, you are right. I mistakenly
called my implementation 'Floyd algorithm'. I will no longer call it 'Floyd
algorithm'. Thank you for pointing me to this mistake." or something like?:
"Thank you for explaining how the strongest paths can be calculated in a
runtime O(N^3). My implementation still has a runtime O(N^5)."

******

You wrote (19 Dec 2003):
> Excuse me, but did I ask who proposed the Floyd algorithm? I was referring
> to the one that you posted here some time ago. I was suggesting that we find
> it in the archives and find out if, without making more than one pass
> through the permutations, it finds the strongest beatpaths between each pair
> of candidates. So I repeat: What was the year, month and day that you posted
> that algorithm that you called the Floyd algorithm and claimed would find
> the strongest beatpaths with one pass through the permutations?

I suggested to use the Floyd algorithm e.g. in my 6 Feb 2001 mail:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/election-methods-list/message/6493
http://lists.electorama.com/pipermail/election-methods-electorama.com/2001-February/005093.html

in my 23 Feb 2001 mail:
http://www.topica.com/lists/RankedPairs/read/message.html?mid=1601349191

in my 14 Nov 2002 mail:
http://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2002/debian-vote-200211/msg00035.html

and in my paper "A New Monotonic and Clone-Independent Single-Winner
Election Method":
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/election-methods-list/files/nmciswem.pdf

******

You wrote (19 Dec 2003):
> By the way, if, as you seem to be suggesting, the Floyd algorithm (the real
> one, I mean) finds the strongest paths between pairs of graph-nodes, even
> though the web articles say that it's intended to find the _shortest_ path,
> then, if that's so, ways of finding strongest paths were being discussed as
> early as 1962. If that's true, do you really believe that it never occurred
> to anyone to compare path strengths between two candidates, until you
> "invented" that idea in 1996?

When you believe that the Schulze method (aka Schwartz Sequential Dropping,
aka Cloneproof Schwartz Sequential Dropping, aka Beatpath Winner, aka
Beatpath Method, aka Path Winner, aka Path Voting, ...) has already been
proposed by other people, then you are invited to post the corresponding
paper.

******

You wrote (19 Dec 2003):
> But that isn't anything different from what I'd already been saying.
> Early in this discussion, I said that I'm not longer saying that anything
> is the Floyd algorithm. I'd assumed that Markus had miscopied an algorithm
> that made as many permutations passes as necessary. Markus says that he'd
> written it right, because it only needs one pass. Markus says that he really
> meant to write the algorithm as he did, and that that is the Floyd algorithm.
> I said "Ok". So why is Markus still having such a problem about it? I have no
> idea, but that's how he always is.

Then, of course, it would have been sufficient for you to say that you don't
call your implementation "Floyd algorithm" anymore. There was no need for you
to spam this mailing list with tons of insulting mails.

Markus Schulze