[EM] Reply to Ernie
MIKE OSSIPOFF
nkklrp at hotmail.com
Fri Dec 19 02:09:01 PST 2003
Ernie,
You wrote:
Can we chill? We're all Condorcet-lovers, after all. Mike probably
used the term Floyd inappropriately.
I reply:
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.
You continued:
I suspect that we're really experiencing a clash of cultures.
I reply:
Excuse me?
You continued:
Markus
appears to be operating from a math/compsci perspective
I reply:
Markus is operating in a "making-up-fictitious-quotes" perspective.
Math and comuter-science have nothing to do with it at all.
You continued:
, where terms
mean something different than they do in Mike.
I reply:
I agree that everything seems to mean something different to Markus. In
particular, Markus evidently has a different perspective on the matter of
whther he should check the accuracy of what he's about to post.
But if you're referring to mathematical terms, then tell me what
mathematical term I have a different meaning for, resulting in the
misunderstanding.
It isn't "Floyd algorithm", because I've already repeated many many times
that I now don't claim to know what it means, and that the meaning of that
term doesn't matter to me.
You continued:
As a physicist, I'm
used to abusing mathematical terminology, so I can appreciate the
dilemma. :-)
But what mathematical terminology is being abused now?
You continued:
I suspect part of the problem is that the term 'shortest path' in the
Flloyd algorithm is used for finding what Mike calls a BeatPath.
I reply:
What I call a beatpath is a sequence of defeats from one candidate to
another (informal definition).
So Floyd calls that a shortest path, and uses it to find a beatpath?
You continued:
The
comparison of such paths to find the strongest beatpath is actually
after the Flloyd algorithm.
I reply:
So something called "shortest paths" are used to find the strongest
beatpath?
Ok.
I don't know if "shortest path" is a mathematical term, but I wasn't really
taking a position on what it means. What I did say was that I agreed that
the Floyd algorithm sounds different from our strongest beatpaths algorithm,
because our algorithm seeks the strongest path betwen 2 candidates, not the
shortest one.
But if you say that finding the shortest path between two candidates can
somehow be part of some method for finding the strongest one, l of course
wouldn't try to contradict you on that. It isn't something that I would
take a position on.
Mike Ossipoff
_________________________________________________________________
Tired of slow downloads? Compare online deals from your local high-speed
providers now. https://broadband.msn.com
More information about the Election-Methods
mailing list