[EM] Reply to Ernie

[MIKE OSSIPOFF]

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