[EM] Markus reply, 12/20/03

[MIKE OSSIPOFF]

Markus said:

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)

I reply:

On the contrary, at the beginning of the discussion, when you said that 
Steve's algorithm isn't the Floyd algorithm,  I said ok, I no longer call it 
the Floyd algorithm, and I'm going to ask Russ to delete that name from it 
at the website. Check the archives. I said that at the beginning of the 
discussion. And you kept repeating that I claim that our implementation is 
the Floyd algorithm.

In your own most recent message, in fact, you copied one of the copies of my 
explanation of why I _previously_ believed that Steve's algorithm was the 
Floyd algorithm.

Here's a paragraph of mine that you copied in your most recent posting:

>, 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".


Where were you when repeatedly expllined that to you? Out to lunch?


Markus continued:

without bombarding with insults that person who pointed to this mistake.

I reply:

I wasn't criticizing you for pointing out to me that Steve's algorithm isn't 
the Floyd algorithm, and that your writing of a 1-pass algorithm was 
intentional, and not an omission, and that that algorithm that you wrote is 
the Floyd algorithm.

No, I was only criticising you for continuing to repeat that I was 
continuing to claim that our implementation is the Floyd algorithm.

Markus continued:

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'.

I reply:

But I did say that. Take a look at the paragraph written by me that I 
copied, above, from your most recent posting. I've said that I no longer 
call it the Floyd algorithm. I've said that I was going to ask Russ to 
delete that name from the algorithm at the website. I carefully explained 
what had caused me to believe that it was the Floyd algorithm, saying that I 
no longer call it that.

Out to lunch?

It sounds as if what you're asking for is an apology for previously calling 
Steve's BeatpathWinner algorithm the Floyd algorithm. No apology, because 
you weren't wronged when I called Steve's algorithm the Floyd algorithm. 
Sorry, no apology. But notice that you do get an apology for the fact that 
there's no apology :-)

Markus continued:

[Markus said I could have said:] Thank you for pointing me to this mistake."

Ok, it's thanks that you want. While I'm at it, shall I thank you for 
posting your mistaken claim that Steve's BeatpathWinner algorithm doesn't 
work? If I'd thanked you for telling me that Steve's algotithm isnt the 
Floyd algorithm, would you then have been willing to stop repeating that I 
still claim that Steve's implementation is the Floyd algorithm?

Markus continued:

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)."

I reply:

Well, you didhn't really show that. You claimed it. I'm not saying that it 
isn't true. As I said, the accuracy of your claim could be judged by finding 
Floyd's 1962 proof, and finding out if it even applies to the job of finding 
the strongest beatpath between each ordered pair of candidates. I'm not 
debating that or denying it. Maybe it's true that, as you say, all the 
strongest beatpaths can be found with one pass through the 3-candidate 
permutations.

You reallly need thanks, don't you? Ok, thank yoiu, Markus, for stating your 
claim. Now, can this debate end?


I'd said:

>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.

Markus replied:

Then, of course, it would have been sufficient for you to say that you don't
call your implementation "Floyd algorithm" anymore.

I reply:

Hello-o-o-o! That's what I've been repeating for you over and over again, to 
no avail.

Markus continued:

There was no need for you
to spam this mailing list with tons of insulting mails.

I reply:

I won't debate whether there was a need to insult you. But can you look at 
your ridiculous statement that I quoted directly above, and say that there 
wasn't a reason to call you an idiot?

Mike Ossipoff

_________________________________________________________________
Working moms: Find helpful tips here on managing kids, home, work —  and 
yourself.   http://special.msn.com/msnbc/workingmom.armx