[EM] 2nd Matt reply--12/20/03
Craig Carey
research at ijs.co.nz
Sun Dec 21 10:13:06 PST 2003
At 2003-12-21 12:28 +0100 Sunday, Markus Schulze wrote:
>
>Dear Mike,
>
>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. Craig Carey claimed that my
>implementation of the Floyd algorithm doesn't work (presumably
>because it makes only one pass through the triple-loop and
>presumably because Craig believed because of the while-loop
I wrote here to correct the wrong claim that I wrote so uselessly
on part of algorithm, and I reject that I could have possibly have
as irrational as Mr Schulze suggested with his speculation on what
I would have believed.
Also I never wrote on the Floyd *part*. Instead I wrote on the whole
algorithm. (I used only the name "Stage 2" for what Mr Schulze is
now calling the "Floyd algorithm". That is what the documents show.
I worded my comments so that a fault in part 2 created a fault in
the whole algorithm. That is totally different from criticising the
Floyd algorithm. Mr Schulze might have rejected my arguments after
I soundly argued that hje must reject his new seeming write-up of
the so called awfully unprincipled Schulze method, subsequently
identified as not even being defined in the articles submitted and
published.
** I did not claim that the Floyd algorithm "doesn't work". I simply
have a stable set of axioms that can be used as test. Mr Schulze
has probably an clear idea on what they are. Tests must be axioms
or else there is a huge slump in credibility and we end up with
errors like Mr Ossipoff's belief that inserting a preference for a
total loser should not upset the winner of previously winning
candidate owning a subsequent preference in the same ballot paper.
>in your implementation that the Floyd algorithm doesn't find
>the strongest paths in a single pass through the triple-loop).
>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. But when one considers the possible
>short cuts in that order that has been proposed by Floyd then
>a single pass is sufficient.
>
Mr Shulze's seeminlgy recent (fully undefined) "well-definedness"
test, apparently passes fully undefined methods. So the reasoning
is suspect as well as the definitions, and I could not follow the
reasoning. S
I wish to note that Mr Markus Schulze is altering the wording according
to an estimate on whether disproving documents show up.
It won't be OK in politics. But this is just list for untrue statements
that have no place in the design of quality preferential voting methods
(particularly when Diana speaks. As for myself, shall be withdrawing
from this deep dark hole without much delay).
-----------------------
Mr Schulze actually seems to have receivied my e-mail containing the
algebra. It was dated 23 October 2003.
Its title was "Comments on the new Shulze voting method of Voting Matters 2003"
It was factual and withheld and its comments were the material and of
compelling importance to my communications with Mr Shulze in the last
week here at this list. It was the missing material part to my arguments
and it won't do for Mr Shulze to leave a suspicion that I was aiming to
produce clarifying summaries of allegations that never exists.
The poor members here do not like algebra, so they aggregate and don't
know what fairness is. They maybe really are not so stupid that they
can't create truly better method, but all are out for lunch if the
topic of defining what better means shows up. After following it for
long enough, it seems that knowing nothing is the aim or a top aim.
Here is my not-edited log file record showing that Mr Schulze received
the e-mail where I tried to convert the entiire Shulze thing of the
(Voting Matter 17 PDF file and Shulze's submitted PDF), into a polytope:
--------------------------------------------------------------------
|SYSTEM $1 23 Oct 2003 23:30:33 +1300 $2 Connecting to "mail.zrz.tu-berlin.de"
|SYSTEM $1 23 Oct 2003 23:30:33 +1300 $2 DNS server responded with 0 (OK) [2]
|SYSTEM $1 23 Oct 2003 23:30:33 +1300 $2 Connecting to "gr.mx0.global.net.uk"
|130.149.4.15 $1 23 Oct 2003 23:30:34 +1300 $2 Connected
|80.189.92.100 $1 23 Oct 2003 23:30:35 +1300 $2 Connected
|80.189.92.100 $1 23 Oct 2003 23:30:35 +1300 $2 <<< 220 mx0.global.net.uk ESMTP Exim 3.36 #8 Thu, 23 Oct 2003 11:30:33 +0100
|80.189.92.100 $1 23 Oct 2003 23:30:35 +1300 $2 >>> EHLO Merak
|80.189.92.100 $1 23 Oct 2003 23:30:36 +1300 $2 <<< 250 HELP
|80.189.92.100 $1 23 Oct 2003 23:30:36 +1300 $2 >>> MAIL From:<research at ijs.co.nz> SIZE=2321
|80.189.92.100 $1 23 Oct 2003 23:30:36 +1300 $2 <<< 250 <research at ijs.co.nz> is syntactically correct
|80.189.92.100 $1 23 Oct 2003 23:30:36 +1300 $2 >>> RCPT To:<brian.wichmann at totalise.co.uk>
|80.189.92.100 $1 23 Oct 2003 23:30:37 +1300 $2 <<< 250 <brian.wichmann at totalise.co.uk> verified
|80.189.92.100 $1 23 Oct 2003 23:30:37 +1300 $2 >>> DATA
|80.189.92.100 $1 23 Oct 2003 23:30:37 +1300 $2 <<< 354 Enter message, ending with "." on a line by itself
|80.189.92.100 $1 23 Oct 2003 23:30:39 +1300 $2 <<< 250 OK id=1ACcjj-000IgF-00
|80.189.92.100 $1 23 Oct 2003 23:30:39 +1300 $2 *** <research at ijs.co.nz> <brian.wichmann at totalise.co.uk> 1 2321 00:00:01 OK
|80.189.92.100 $1 23 Oct 2003 23:30:39 +1300 $2 >>> QUIT
|80.189.92.100 $1 23 Oct 2003 23:30:39 +1300 $2 <<< 221 mx0.global.net.uk closing connection
|SYSTEM $1 23 Oct 2003 23:30:39 +1300 $2 Disconnected
|130.149.4.15 $1 23 Oct 2003 23:30:40 +1300 $2 <<< 220 TU-Berlin.DE - ESMTP (exim-4.24) ready at Thu, 23 Oct 2003 12:30:38 +0200
|130.149.4.15 $1 23 Oct 2003 23:30:40 +1300 $2 >>> EHLO Merak
|130.149.4.15 $1 23 Oct 2003 23:30:40 +1300 $2 <<< 250 HELP
|130.149.4.15 $1 23 Oct 2003 23:30:40 +1300 $2 >>> MAIL From:<research at ijs.co.nz> SIZE=2321
|130.149.4.15 $1 23 Oct 2003 23:30:41 +1300 $2 <<< 250 OK
|130.149.4.15 $1 23 Oct 2003 23:30:41 +1300 $2 >>> RCPT To:<markus.schulze at alumni.tu-berlin.de>
|130.149.4.15 $1 23 Oct 2003 23:30:46 +1300 $2 <<< 250 Accepted
|130.149.4.15 $1 23 Oct 2003 23:30:46 +1300 $2 >>> DATA
|130.149.4.15 $1 23 Oct 2003 23:30:46 +1300 $2 <<< 354 Enter message, ending with "." on a line by itself
|130.149.4.15 $1 23 Oct 2003 23:30:48 +1300 $2 <<< 250 OK id=1ACcjs-0007Tq-Lo
|130.149.4.15 $1 23 Oct 2003 23:30:48 +1300 $2 *** <research at ijs.co.nz> <markus.schulze at alumni.tu-berlin.de> 1 2321 00:00:01 OK
|130.149.4.15 $1 23 Oct 2003 23:30:48 +1300 $2 >>> QUIT
|130.149.4.15 $1 23 Oct 2003 23:30:48 +1300 $2 <<< 221 mail.zrz.tu-berlin.de closing connection
|SYSTEM $1 23 Oct 2003 23:30:48 +1300 $2 Disconnected
--------------------------------------------------------------------
( In the above:
String $1 = "[00000C80] Thu, " or "[00000C90] Thu, "
String $2 = "Client session"
The document got to him in my opinion.
I invite Mr Schulze to turn his mind to the question of the signficance
the fairly compelling algebraic founded suggestions that his paper is
ass good as derailed train.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Mr Schulze just wrote this:
----------------------------
At 2003-12-21 10:35 +0100 Sunday, Markus Schulze wrote:
>Dear Craig,
>
>could you please post some examples to explain what you
>are talking about?
>
>Markus Schulze
----------------------------
Once again, the same problem seems to be present: Mr Schulze got symbolic
algebra evidence of amazing awful defects prohibiting all use of the
Schulze method (by every intelligent person and cockroaches too) in the
23 October 2003 e-mail.
Actually Mr Ossipoff got a copy of an emended version dated 25-October-2003.
I sent that off to Mr Mike Ossipoff at "nkklrp at hotmail.com" on 21 December
2003.
It just looks like a request for information about a preferential
voting method that was not defined. However it looks like the chief
defendant has lost access to more than only his private e-mails
from October 2003. Praise our good fortune that he can still write his
name.
-----------------------------------
The Condorcet Winner ideal, was sighted dead on 5 September 2001.
Certainly Marcus would have known thoroughly that Condorcet technology is
awfully out of date and now proven to be inferior to (censored). Here is the
message:
At 2001-Sept-05 18:21 +1200 Wednesday, Craig Carey wrote:
...
>At 2001.Sept.04 16:40 -0400 Tuesday, Dave Ketchum wrote:
...
>This original "Fluffy" example has such problems with its numbers that new
>numbers could be used and the original discarded. Here is an improved
>version:
>
> AB 48 : 1 winner (no. 1)
> B 3
> CB 49
>
> Condorcet: B wins : A:B = 48:52, B:C = 51:49, C:A = 49:48
> FPTP: C wins
>
>Candidate B wins, and: (1) the outcome is too different to First Past the
>Post to some, and (2) allowing that would lead into problems.
>
>Condorcet can be rejected for picking the wrong number of winners even
>without this example.
>
>If Mr Layton writes, perhaps an 'improved' Fluffy the Dog example could
>be named.
>
>
>At 2000.11.13 12:05 +1100 Monday, LAYTON Craig wrote:
> >There is basically one cogent criticism of all Condorcet systems, of which
> >you're all aware; that it puts too much importance on middle preferences,
> >especially when not all candidates or parties are known to voters. Example:
> >
> >In a two candidate race:
> >A 51
> >C 49
> >
> >C wins
> A wins
> >
> >A and C are diametrically opposed, there has been a long and dirty smear
> >campaign, so that C voters hate A and A voters hate C. My dog, fluffy (B),
> >joins the race at the last minute;
> >
> >ABC 49
> >CBA 49
> >BAC 01
> >BCA 01
> A:B = 49:51, B:C = 51:49, C:A = 50:50
> >
> >Fluffy is the Condorcet winner!.
>...
How can a dead method be noncontroversial, attainable, optimally satisfactory,
and attainable ?.
Those are some traits of a fairest preferential voting method (not an algorithm).
----------------------------------------
How arbitrary: some privately belief on conduct with not even a single radiating
Argon gas atom illuminating the statement with the right stuff:
At 2003-12-21 09:33 +0000 Sunday, Diana Galletly <dag*000 at eng.cam.ac.uk> wrote:
>On Sun, 21 Dec 2003, MIKE OSSIPOFF wrote (of Matt):
...
>Also I don't see the need for the insults. Calling people "idiots", telling
>them there must be something seriously wrong with them, and patronising
>people by telling them that their reactions are driven by their emotions
>rather than rationality is not helpful.
>
>I was of the belief that both Mike and Markus are staunch Condorcetites.
Moronic and covert over how they checked their principles and still ended
up adhering to wrong ideals, is something Diana can inquire into.
>Think how this petty squabble is just playing into the hands of someone
>like Craig Carey, who also appears to use insults as his stock-in-trade
>(as well as being pretty incomprehensible).
>
>Diana.
Diana, my thinking here could be imagine by you to be like a very large
English church. Probing bits might not reveal a huge amount.
In 1999 the Election Methods List ad both drop outs and politeness.
Rather than reject bits of Diana's advice, it might be fairer to find out
more of her beliefs in the aim of estimating a date when Diana is likely
to drop out or quit.
---
So to conclude: I sent arguments to Mr Shulze and his guesswork on my
belief is unable to be created and maintained given the 23-October-2003
e-mail he got appealing him to contain his wrong thoughts, since so in
error. That never happened, and surely it would have been better if it
had of.
Craig Carey
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/politicians-and-polytopes
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/single-transferable-vote
Origin of 1/3 quota in IFPP: http://www.ijs.co.nz/quota-13.htm
Use of QE solver REDLOG: http://www.ijs.co.nz/polytopes.htm
More information about the Election-Methods
mailing list