[EM] 2nd Matt reply--12/20/03
nkklrp at hotmail.com
Sat Dec 20 23:53:01 PST 2003
I know about the Floyd algorithm
Good for you, Matt.
Markus provided us with references about that algorithm, as well as the code
to implement it, in past discussions on this group with Mike over several
years on this same issue.
No, not really. I didn't discuss that algorithm with Markus for several
However I've already stated that he'd posted the algorithm some years ago,
so it isn't quite clear why you feel a need to assert that.
I followed the entire exchange here and Markus did not start the discussion
with the false statement Mike claims. On the contrary, I am certain that
Markus explicitly acknowledged the python program would probably work as it
is currently written.
I quote from Markus's posting on 15 December, '03:
"However Mike Ossipoff always describes the Floyd algorithm as follows:
[followed by a fragment of a Python program, with some of the lines partly
This does not work."
Matt, yoiu're wasting our time when you post demonstrably innacurate claims.
To restore some credibility for yourself Mike...
It isn't quite clear how Matt feels that I've lost "credibility". For
instance, in this discussion, I have a much better statement-accuracy record
than Matt does.
..., how about arranging to correct the code to make it O(N^3)?
Sorry, but no. I thought that I'd made it clear in my previous reply to you
that I'm leaving the algorithm as-is, at the website, and in my replies to
people who ask about implementation. As I said at that time, Steve's
algorithm very obviously works. That's obvious at a glance. The 1-pass
algorithm, even if it works, doesn't have anything like the obvious validity
of Steve's algorilthm.
If I sent Markus's algorithm out in reply to people who ask about
implementation, I'd have to convince them that it works, contrary to
And, as I likewise said before, the run-time of Steve's algorithm isn't
going to be a problem anyway.
The websites that I've checked say that the Floyd algorithm finds shortest
beatpaths. They didn't mention strongest beatpaths. Markus says that it can
be modified for strongest beatpaths too (but that raises the question of
whether, after modification, it's still the Floyd algorithm). Maybe when its
job is to find shortest beatpaths it can complete the job in one pass. If
so, maybe, when its job is modified to finding strongest beatpaths, it
retains that capability.
Please note, Matt, that I don't take a position on that question, or make
any challenge or issue about that. That hasn't been an issue here.
All this time Mike is wasting futiley trying to beat down Markus...
I've been futily trying to explain to Markus that I'm not claiming that
Steve's algorithm is the Floyd algorithm. Yes, I admit that that effort has
But you're being over-dramatic and silly when you say that I'm trying to
beat him down. Maybe you meant to say "...beat Markus back."
...could be better spent by soliciting help from someone who codes python to
modify the code.
No, I'm going to have to disappoint you on that. I'm not going to modify the
strongest-beatpaths algorithm because you prefer a different one. But I
certainly encourage you to use whichever one you prefer.
Then again, your attacks on Markus are so completely false...
Can you name one false thing I said about Markus? I merely pointed out the
falsity of his continually-repeated statement that I claim that Steve's
stongest beatpaths algorithm is the Floyd algorithm.That's really the only
issue in the discussion.
Well, I also objected to his statement that our algorilthm doesn't work. My
statement that he said that isn't a false statement either--I quoted his
statement above in this message, and stated the date of his posting. Check
it out if you don't believe it.
...and nasty that I really doubt there is anything you can do to restore
your credibility with me.
I've lost Matt's credence :-)
As for "nasty", I always start out polite. You wouldn't notice this, but
it's only after many repititions of Markus's misquotes that I stop being
You shouldn't think that I'm singling Markus out. For some people, at least,
there's a natural tendency to put your gut feeling about someone over the
actual facts of the discussion.
You, for example: You decided that you felt that I was being mean to Markus.
Then, governed by your anger, and your natural protective instinct, you felt
a need to refute what I was saying, a need to tell why Markus was the one
who was right. Apparently that need was greater than your ability to read
the postings and remember what I'd said, and what I hadn't said. So you
began making refuting noises. These noises from you have been almost
entirely vague, without specifying exactly which statement of mine was
incorrect. The only exception to the vagueness was when you pinpointed an
alleged mis-statement of mine: My statement that Markus had said that our
algorithm doesn't work. (But check Markus's 15 Dec. '03 posting).
Yoiur protectiveness toward Markus is laudable, and I'm not criticizing
that. But you need to understand that you're one of those people who, when
something angers you or arouses your protective instinct, is ruled entirely
by emotion, so that you send to us a "refuting" posting that either refers
to no actual statements (refutation pretty much requires that you say
exactly what you're refuting), or else makes a quite false statement such as
your claim that Markus didn't say that our algorithm didn't work.
So suggestion to you, Matt, is: If you want to refute something, find out
specifically what statement you want to refute. Find a statement that is
incorrect. Then tell us what it is that you want to refute. Then tell us why
it isn't correct.
When you're vague, when you don''t tell us what you mean, people aren't
going to know what you're trying to say. Good luck in future postings.
and that I don't intend to use something that doesn't have the obvious
validity of Steve's algorithm. But I hadn't yet said that at the time that
you posted your other message implying that there was
Make your home warm and cozy this winter with tips from MSN House & Home.
More information about the Election-Methods