[EM] The criterion you suggested is inconsistent with your "motivation" for it.

[Markus Schulze]

Dear Mike,

you wrote (6 Feb 2004):
> Plurality fails the requirement stated in your "motivation".
> Plurality passes your criterion, in the next paragraph. I
> don't care where you copied that critrerion. You said that
> you'd call that the criterion definition.
>
> Your criterion doesn't make the requirement that your
> "motivation" says that you want the criterion to make.
>
> Obviously there isn't much point in stating a motivation and
> then posting a criterion that doesn't make the requirement
> that the motivation says that you want. I'm merely bringing
> it to your attention that that is what you've done. No doubt
> it was done mistakenly, and I'm just letting you know about
> your error.

In so far as I have copied the text from Steve Eppley's
website, I don't know what you mean with "your criterion"
or "your error". Do you want to say that Steve erred when
he wrote?: "... Another wording is nearly equivalent: ..."

Markus Schulze