[EM] 2nd Matt reply--12/20/03

[Markus Schulze]

Dear Craig,

you wrote (21 Dec 2003):
> 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. (...) I did not claim that the Floyd algorithm
> "doesn't work".

However, on 15 Dec 2003, you wrote:
> A defective spot in Mr Schulze's article is this:
>
>      "4 Implementation
>       ...
>       It cannot be said frequently that the order
>       of the indices in the triple-loop of the
>       Floyd algorithm is not irrelevant."
>
> The principle of having the winner unaffected by the lettering
> might be failed. 
>
> E.g. this could happen. (The only change is a reordering
> of ALL the for loops inside of the algorithm):
>
>   Harry (=#1) Winner
>   Horace (=#2) Loser
>   Horseradish (=#3) Loser
>
>   Harry (=#2) Loser
>   Horace (=#1) Winner
>   Horseradish (=#3) Loser

And in your 16 Dec 2003 mail, you claimed that "secret internal
relettering (or renaming or renumbering) inside of the algorithm
affects who the winner is." Thus, on the one side you call the
Floyd algorithm "defective" and claim that the result of the
Floyd algorithm depends on the lettering and on the other side
you write that you "did not claim that the Floyd algorithm
'doesn't work'".

Markus Schulze