[EM] Re: Floyd algorithm?

[MIKE OSSIPOFF]

Markus--

About the algorithms you described, I might suggest that Russ change the 
index order in our strongest-beatpaths algorithm, if I have a proof to send 
him that shows that making that change would achieve its desired purpose.

As you suggested, maybe I could find such a proof at a library, if no one is 
going to post it here.

But that index-order change would puzzle readers, would be something needing 
explanation and justification. Without the order-change, someone looking at 
the algorithm is likely to understand that it makes sense. It wouldn't be 
desirable for them to feel that they don't undestand the algorithm because 
they don't undestand why we've written the index order in an unexpected way.

So I'd suggest only changing that order if the runtime would be prohibitive 
without the Floyd order-change.

In public elections there's a good chance that, at some point, someone would 
suggest the faster index order of Floyd. Filne. In fact, when things reached 
the implementation-setup stage, maybe I myself would suggest it, provided 
that I had a proof that it accomplishes its desired purpose. But that 
doesn't mean that our  algorithm needs to be written that way.

You'd said:

You wrote (31 Jan 2004):
>Markus'd said:
>The problem is: When you refuse to say that you don't call your
>implementation "Floyd algorithm" _anymore_ and when you insult
>those people who mention that you had called your implementation
>"Floyd algorithm", then you make the readers mistakenly believe
>that you claim that you had never called it "Floyd algorithm".
>
>I'd replied:
>
>No, _your_ problem is: ....

No, it's _your_ problem.

I reply:

Oh, excuse me. I just thought that it was your problem because you're the 
one who keeps pursuing and spamming the issue on this mailing list 
unendingly.

You continued:

It is _your_ problem that you don't
understand that you hurt yourself when you describe your favorite
method in such a manner that the readers mistakenly believe that
already for small numbers of candidates a computer is needed to
calculate the winner

I reply:

A computer isn't needed when there are just a few candidates. If there are 
so many that one would want to use the Floyd algorithm, that's already 
enough work that one would want to use a computer.

You continued:

and that for large numbers of candidates the
runtime to calculate the winner is prohibitive.

I reply:

You're half right: I don't know that that's true. I don't know if any 
reasonable number of candidates would cause a prohibitively long runtime, 
without Floyd's index-order change, using a modern computer.

I suspect that it would take very many candidates to make the runtime 
prohibitive. That's something that could be determined by experiment.

But surely that isn't the problem that is bothering you so much, because you 
told me about that at the outset, and I acknowledged it. So it isn't clear 
why you're still having a problem about it.

You continued:

It is _your_
problem that you don't understand that a discussion about the
merits of the different implementations is _not_ a discussion
about grammar.

I reply:

Oh excuse me, I thought that you were telling how something should be said 
in order to mean what it was intended to mean.

You continued:

>You wrote (31 Jan 2004):
>But when you suggested that I inclulde "anymore", that was a
>suggestion about how I should word things.
>
>When, in my most recent message about this,  I referred to your
>suggestion about how I should word things, did you believe that
>I referring to your long-ago statement that the Floyd algorithm
>alters the index order? Actually I made it clear what wording
>suggestion I was referrnig to. It was clear that I was referring
>to your suggestion that I should use "anymore".

You replied:

This is a mailing list on election methods and not on your
grammatical blablabla.

I reply:

Sometimes the people who least like grammar are the ones who make the most 
errors.
You were making a lot of very confused incorrect statements about the 
meaning of things that I'd said, indicating some major grammatical confusion 
on your part.

You continued:

When you admit that your comments have
nothing to do with the current discussion about the different
implementations to calculate the strengths of the strongest
paths

I reply:

I admit that I don't agree that the discussion has been about the different 
implementations to calculate the strongest paths. That issue was settled at 
the outset. You said that the Floyd algorithm changes the index order, and 
that therefore the Floyd algorithm is different from what we use, and that 
the Floyd index order makes it possible to find all the strongest paths in 
one pass.  I said "Ok". That was that. Or should have been. After that, the 
discussion wasn't about the algorithms themselves. It was about your silly 
issues about what I'd said and what you confusedly thought it meant. It also 
consisted of your endlessly repeated replies to things that hadn't been 
said. In fact, it still does.

You continued:

You wrote (31 Jan 2004):
>Markus continued:
>
>However, I haven't made a mistake since when I wrote on
>15 Dec 2003 that you called your implementation "Floyd algorithm"
>my observation was correct.
>
>I reply:
>
>Can you post a quote in which I said that your first statement
>that I'd called our implementation the Floyd algorithm was
>incorrect?
>
>"I don't call that the Floyd algorithm" doesn't mean that you were
>incorrect a long time ago when you first said that I'd previously
>called it the Floyd algorithm.

On 18 Dec 2003, you wrote: "Wrong. I don't call that the Floyd
algorithm." "Wrong" means "incorrect". Doesn't it?

I reply:

Yes it does. And you were incorrect, which was why I said "Wrong". After I'd 
said that it wasn't the Floyd algorithm, you kept saying that I call it the 
Floyd algorithm. Yes, that's wrong and incorrect.

As quoted above, I asked you for a quote in which I said that your first 
statement that I'd called our algorithm the Floyd algorithm was incorrect. 
You found a passage in which I said you were wrong because I don't call that 
the Floyd algorithm. I'd said that many times in reply to your 
continually-repeated claim, after I'd said that it isn't the Floyd 
algorilthm,  that I call it the Floyd algorithm.

You've posted a quote in which I said you were incorrect to say that I call 
it the Floyd algorithm.

You've previously indicated that you value honor. But that quote by me was 
said in reply to your statements made after I'd said it wasn't the Floyd 
algorithm. I've posted a copy of my words immediately after you said it 
isn't the Floyd algorithm, in which I acknowledged I'd called it the Floyd 
algorithm. So when you post that quote from a later time, representing it as 
a quote of my saying that your _initial_ statement that I called it the 
Floyd algorithm was wrong, that shows that you are without any honor.  
You've shown that the truthfulness of what you say isn't reliable. Liar is 
the usual word.

You continued:

You quoted me:

>But long after you first pointed out that the genuine Floyd algorithm
>alters the index order, and long after I'd acknolwdged that the genuine
>Floyd algorithm alters the index order, and that the genuine Floyd
>algorithm is therefore different from our implementation, you continued
>to say that I call our implementation the Floyd algorithm. That's why
>it's true that you're an idiot and a confused wording-Nazi.

You said:

On the other side, e.g. in my 22 Dec 2003 mail I wrote 4 times that I
don't claim that you continue to claim that Eppley's algorithm is Floyd's
algorithm.

I reply:

And yet you were continuing to say that I call it that, even after I'd said 
that it isn't the Floyd algorithm, because, at some time in the past, I had 
called it that. Yes, I admit that you were contradicting yourself, or 
showing that you don't know the difference between "call" and "called".

There's a parrot that has shown that it knows the distinction between past 
and present tenses. That parrot is one-up on Markus.  Maybe Markus should 
take lessons from it.

You continued:

But nevertheless, you continue to claim that I continue to
claim that you continue to claim that Eppley's algorithm is Floyd's
algorithm.

I reply:

If you're now through saying that I call it the Floyd algorithm, then I 
won't continue to claim that you continue to claim that I call it the Floyd 
algorithm--then I'll only say that you were incorrectly making that claim 
during the entire discussion up to this point.

Still, that's progress,  if you're no longer saying that.

You continued:

You are the idiot and the confused wording-Nazi because you
don't see that you do exactly that thing you insult other people for.

I reply:

It's a common feature of elementrary school repartee, to repeat what the 
other person has said about you, about the other person. No, there's no 
similiarity in what I've been saying and what you've been saying. False 
statements that I call it the Floyd algorithm, after I've said that it isn't 
the Floyd algorithm, because I'd called it that before I'd acknowldedged it 
wasn't that and before you pointed out that it isn't. Confusion about the 
difference between past and present verb tenses. Endlessly repeated replies 
to things that hadn't been said. No, I don't say anything resembling what 
the confused wording-Nazi idiot has been saying.

You quoted me:

>But you're showing that you need the lessons. But I ask you to go somewhere
>else for them, because here the subject is off-topic. In this case, your
>errors of grammar lead you to endlessly spam the list with incorrect
>statements about another list-member. You're not posting about voting
>systems. You're off-topic. Aside from that, you're incorrect too.

You said:

Apparently there's no way to help Mike to understand that a discussion about
the merits of the different implementations to calculate the strengths of 
the
strongest paths is not a discussion about English grammar.

I reply:

You're right: I don't agree that this discussion has been about the merits 
of the different implementations to calculate the strength of the strongest 
paths.

Is it a discussion of grammar? Sometimes. It's a discussion of grammar when 
you tell me what I should add to a sentence in order to clarify that it's 
present tense instead of past. You say I needed "anymore" to redundantly 
emphasize something that I'd already amply stated previously.

You continued:

The fact that Mike
calls mails on such implementations "off-topic"

I reply:

I've never called you "off-topici" when you spoke about strongest-beatpath 
implementations.

But you're off-topic when you devote so much spam to your claims about what 
another list member said, and what you think it means, and what you think 
should have been added to a sentence to emphasize something that had been 
fully and clearly stated previously.

You quoted me:

>No one said that that statement pointed to a grammatical error. But
>in other statements, when you're telling me that "anymore" is needed
>in order to indicate the present tense, you're making an incorrect
>grammatical claim.

I didn't say that the term "anymore" is needed. I said that it would have
been better if you had used the term "anymore" to stress that you had
corrected your terminology.

I reply:

And I told you that it would be just as well if you didn't presume to tell 
me how to say things.
You say it would be better if I used "anymore" to emphasize that I had 
corrected my terminology. But where were you when I corrected my 
terminology? I did so clearly and fully.  I said that our implementation 
isn't the Floyd algorithm. I said that immediately after you told me about 
Floyd's order-change. If you forgot that I "corrected the terminology", 
that's your fault, not mine.

You continued:

Do you really believe that whenever someone
makes a suggestion about how you could word things he talks about
grammatical errors?

I reply:

When that person is saying that I make a claim that I've renounced, and 
justifies that because of the lack of "anymore" in a sentence, then yes 
you're making a mistaken grammatical claim.

You'd said:

>The problem is: When you refuse to say that you don't call your
>implementation "Floyd algorithm" _anymore_ and when you insult those
>people who mention that you had called your implementation "Floyd
>algorithm", then you make the readers mistakenly believe that you
>claim that you had never called it "Floyd algorithm".

I reply:

What you say there clearly claims that "anymore" is needed so that people 
won't think I'm talking about the past. That's a mistaken claim about 
meaning, a mistaken grammatical claim.

I'd said:

>"Anymore" was unnecessary in the sentence in which the confused
>wording-Nazi insisted that I should include "anymore".

You said:

So you want to say that you have to use insults like "confused
wording-Nazi" because you are unable to use words like "anymore"?

I reply:

No. Insults like "confused wording-Nazi" are appropriate because you claim 
that "anymore" is needed so that my sentence won't mean that I have never 
called our implementation the Floyd algorithm.

I'd said:

>Though I didn't say I was upset, let me explain why I criticize
>your postings: ...

You said:

The large number of annoying and insulting mails from you suggests
that you are upset about the fact that the strengths of the strongest
paths can be calculated in a polynomial runtime.

I reply:

That's a good thing, if something can be calculated in polynomial runtime. 
In fact, even you have never claimed that our algorithm, as currenlty 
written, won't run in polynomial time.

My annoyance with your confused wording-Nazi idiot postings results merely 
from your repeated mis-statements about what I said, what is meant by 
somethng I said, and your repeated replies to things that were never said.

I'd said:

>... Several members of the lst have indicated that they aren't
>interested in this topic that you inisist on pursuing, spamming
>the list with endless repetition of statements that have been
>answered and replies to statements that were never made.

You said:

On the other side, several members indicated that they are
interested in efficient algorithms to calculate the strengths
of the strongest paths.

I reply:

Good. Do you think you can limit yourself to that, or other voting system 
topics, when you post on this list?

Mike Ossipoff

_________________________________________________________________
Get a FREE online virus check for your PC here, from McAfee. 
http://clinic.mcafee.com/clinic/ibuy/campaign.asp?cid=3963