[EM] Yet more Markus

[MIKE OSSIPOFF]

Markus said:

when I wrote (on 15 Dec 2003) that you called your implementation
"Floyd algorithm" there was no reason for me to believe that you
have changed your opinion recently.

I reply:

Not only that, but I had not changed my opinion about that at that time. On 
17 December I said in a posting here that I, at that time, called our 
algorithm the Floyd algorithm.

No one is disputing the claim that I used to call it that. No one is 
criticizing you for making that observation on 15 December. It's when you 
kept saying it after 18 December that it was obviously false and was 
becoming reallly tiresome.

Markus continued:

[...]

Therefore, I stressed that your implementation is not the Floyd
algorithm and that your algorithm doesn't find the strongest
paths in a single pass.

I reply:

I've already quoted verbatim what you said. You said that our algorithm 
doesn't work.
But I'm not still on that. However you seem to still on that.

Markus continued:

But when one considers the possible
short cuts in that order that has been proposed by Floyd then
a single pass is sufficient.

I reply:

So you keep claiming. But are you able to  prove it? If so, then do so. And, 
  if you're unable to prove it, then post the web URL of someone who is able 
to prove it.

I'm not saying that it isn't true, only that you should prove it if you're 
going to say it.

Markus quoted me:

You wrote (21 Dec 2003):
>That algorithm wasn't written as an attempt to write the Floyd
>algorithm. It was written by people who had never heard of the
>Floyd algorithm. It was written to accomplish the pupose that
>it accomlishes. Only later, due to Markus's earlier post of
>something he called the Floyd algorithm (though it was about
>strongest paths rather than shortest paths), did I hear of the
>Floyd algorithm.

Markus replied:

Even though you write that you have never heard of the Floyd
algorithm

I reply:

Excuse me Markus, but in what posting did I say that I've never heard of the 
Floyd algorithm? Certainly not in the paragraph that you quoted above. What 
I said in that posting was that our strongest-beatpaths algorilthmwas 
written by people who had never heard of the Floyd algorithm.

Listen carefully, Markus: "had" is different from "have".

I said "...people who had never heard of the Floyd algorithmn". You took 
that to mean that I have (up to this day) never heard of the Floyd 
algorithm. Does it occur to you that that was a ridiculous conclusion, 
considering that I've repeatedly mentioned the Floyd algorithm, from 17 
December to the present? Now, when a conclusion is ridiculous, just maybe 
it's incorrect. We have the perfect tense, and, distinct from that, we have 
the past-perfect or pluperfect tense. "...who had never heard of the Floyd 
algorithm" is the latter tense. It  refers to time previoius to the time 
that the sentence refers to. It's about time that was past with respect to 
the past time that the sentence refers to. To clairfy the difference, if I 
say "I haven't heard of the Floyd algorithm", that refers to time previous 
to, and up to, the present The perfect tense and the pluperfect tense are 
two different tenses, with different meanings.

I'm not criticizing you for mistaking those verb-tenses. But when you reach 
a conclusion as ridicoulous as the one that you reached, that should give 
you a clue that maybe you've misunderstood, and that you need to re-check 
what you think was said.

Markus continued:

it is a matter of fact that you called your algorithm
"Floyd algorithm" e.g. in the source code of your Python program
(http://electionmethods.org/CondorcetSSD.py).

I reply:

I've never denied that, Markus.

Markus continued:

Therefore, when I
stress that your implementation is not the Floyd algorithm then
this is a feasible observation and not an "attack".

I reply:

I never criticized you for saying that our implementation isn't the Floyd 
algorithm.

I haven't specifically said that anything was an attack. I said that you 
like to go on the attrack, and that's a good description of what you do. I 
also said that you must have nothing else to do, and that you evidently are 
completely without a life, and I stand by that statement.

Markus continued:

If you hadn't
mistakenly written that your implementation is the Floyd algorithm,
then there wouldn't have been a reason for me to stress that your
implementation is not the Floyd algorithm.

I reo;y:

No one has objected to your pointing out that it isn't the Floyd algorithm. 
All I said about that was that I took your word for it and would tell Russ 
to delete that name from it.

Markus continued:

You wrote (21 Dec 2003):
>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 been futile.

When I wrote (on 15 Dec 2003) that you called your implementation
"Floyd algorithm" there was no reason for me to believe that you
have changed your opinion recently.

I reply:

You already said that, Markus, earlier in your posting. The answer is the 
same here: My opinion that our implmentation was the Floyd algorithm indeed 
had not changed as of that time. Additionally, on 17 December I stated that 
I call it the Floyd algorithm. But on the 18th I made it clear that that was 
no longer so, as of the 18th.

Markus continued:

In one of your recent mails,
you admitted that you mistakenly believed Eppley's algorithm to
be Floyd's algorithm and you admitted that you mistakenly called
Eppley's algorithm "Floyd's algorithm". Therefore, my criticism
was feasible

I reply:

Sure, if you want to repeat what I'd already said, that I mistakenly 
believed that you'd intended to write Steve's algorithm when you posted your 
Floyd algorithm, that's fine. I wasn't aware that it was criticism, and I've 
never objected to your pointiing that out.

But do you really believe that I'd agree that it wasn't the Floyd algorithm 
and then criticize you for saying that it isn't th eFloyd algorilthm? Again, 
a ridiculous conclulsion that should give you a clue that you need to 
re-check what you thought I wrote.

Does it occur to you how much of our time you're wasting because you draw 
those ridiculous conclusions, and then write about them instead of checking 
whether I really said what you initially believe I said? You're unbelievably 
sloppy.

Markus continued:

and you admitted this.

I reply:

If you admilt that I did you feel the need to keep re-asserting what was 
already admitted?

Markus continued:

Therefore, there is absolutely
no justification for your insulting mails.

I reply:

Sure there was and is, with the astoundingly ridiculous things that you come 
up with, such as saying that I claim to have never heard of the Floyd 
algorithm, because I said that our implementation was written by peoiple who 
had never heard of the Floyd algorilthm.

Markus continued:

I don't claim that you continue to claim that Eppley's algorithm
is Floyd's algorithm. However, when I pointed (on 15 Dec 2003) to
the fact that you mistakenly called your implementation "Floyd
algorithm" this observation was true.

I reply:

...and no one objected to your saying that then. But I objected to that same 
statement after 18 December, when I'd made it clear that I was no longer 
callling it the Floyd algorithm.

Mike Ossipoff

_________________________________________________________________
Worried about inbox overload? Get MSN Extra Storage now!  
http://join.msn.com/?PAGE=features/es