[EM] Ossipoff's lost 8 proofs now supplied by Adam Tarr Re: [EM] Clarifying the definitions

[Craig Carey]

At 2004-01-31 12:45 -0500 Saturday, Adam Tarr wrote:
>
>> > Markus also said that the academics always define criteria in terms of
>> > actual votes, ballots, rather than mentioning "preference" in the usual
>> > sense of that word. Markus prefers that also. However, the fact that others
>> > only mention ballots doesn't mean that it's somehow improper to refer to
>> > preferences.
>>
>>Election methods are usually defined as a function from a given input
>>(e.g. a set of partial rankings of the candidates) to a given output
>>(e.g. a probability distribution on the set of candidates). Where this
>>input comes from is of no concern for the analysis of this election
>>method.
>
>This is, in my opinion, the crucial difference between the (non-academic) 
>criteria that Mike uses, and the standard academic criteria.  Normal 
>academic criteria essentially tell you something about how a method handles 
>a certain set of ballots.

Is this incomprehensible?, or is it more safely called untrue ? (why
doesn't their wording talk about initial preferences?):

>                           Criteria like FBC or SFC deal with initial 
>preferences, and allow them to change when they become ballots in the method.
>



Mr Tarr is writing untruthfully. Perhaps the word "criteria" ought be
explained. I think it may mean that Mike allows secret inputs into 
his rules and they are passed or failed depending on his wishes. However
the wordings don't make that sort of thing plain. But we do know that
the students know that the real rules are still in Mike's brain and
the ones on the webpage are never really clearly said to be exactly
the same. If there are big differences then Mike won't tell us.

Last time I asked you a question you made a really obvious show of
pretending to withhold information that you claimed to have and really
did not have. After more than a few messages, you did not make the
information available.

Lying in public is a trait of devottees of Mike Guru Ottisoff.

What is the purpose for waiting for a message billowing high with
false claims before you reappear and suggest that persons could
miss grasping one of his important ideas. I certainly can't recall
any important idea of Mike Ossipoff.

A quick search on the e-mail address "atarr at purdue.edu" finds nothing
at all, at www.google.com and at groups.google.com.

It is great to have a fast exposition of Mr Tarrs algebraic
arguments on how to put meaning into the manure qualitiy wordings
that Mike created for us to read (or ignore if assuming that Mike
also ignores the wordings since not the ones in his mind (provided
by the one true Lord but lost subsequently.

---------

You will find the rules here. Firstly you would recover meaning from
them:

http://www.electionmethods.org/evaluation.htm

----

You were a student of Ossipoffism. So you bring with you the ideal of
lying about holding proofs that we are expecting to be entirely algebraic
with every step checkable. The bigger picture is that of making sure
that wrong winners have a better chance of being going up.

Now is your chance to defend the father figure: he produced too many
lies and I expect him to take the rug with him.

Even Richard spoke on the fraternity of students once. 


In case you decided to not click on the URL above (and have not read it
for months), here is the URL containing the writings of Mike (again):

http://www.electionmethods.org/evaluation.htm




At 2004-01-31 05:10 +0000 Saturday, MIKE OSSIPOFF wrote:
Subj: Re: [EM] Clarifying the definitions

>So, Approval doesn't pass SFC because sincere voting in Approval doesn't 

***** # 1 *****              ^ [Request proof number 1]

>necessarily mean voting your preference for the CW over candidate B, as it 
>does with rank balloting. Therefore, we can write an example of an Approval 
>election in which a majority prefer the CW to B, and vote sincerely, with no 
>one falsifying a preference, and B wins anyway.
>

He gets data, and then wrongly throws it away (as if replacing google.com
with his memory of the principles). I.e. even the persons alleging
sincerity has to be sincere.


>Same with CC,     as my Approval CC example shows.
***** # 2 *****  ^ [Request proof number 2. There is no well worded rule that
                can test an example]
>
>Of course IRV has rank balloting and fails SFC anyway, as most rank methods 
***** # 3 ******                               ^ [Request proof number 3]

>do. And evenmost pairwise count methods fail SFC, GSFC, WDSC, & SDSC, even 
  ^ [Request proof number 4]  ***** # 4 ****** 


>do. And evenmost pairwise count methods fail SFC, GSFC, WDSC, & SDSC, even 
***** # 5,6,7, & 8 MOST METHODS *****       ^ [I Request proofs #s 4,5,6,7.]

>though the simple, modest Approval passes WDSC.
***** # 8 ******                              ^ [Request proof number 8]


I could answer eight questions.

If you get the proofs in late, please date each of the prrofs and 
disproofs.



Don't forget to click on Ossipoff's rules (the ones he can many claims
on):

http://www.electionmethods.org/evaluation.htm


What sort of person produces wordings that are too dumb to use, and then
says he checked *most* pairwise methods and *most* ranked methods, with
them.

Did Ossipoff check the 3 candidate IFPP method ?.

Pumping out the billowing lies about having tested _most_ preferential
voting methods seems suspect. Doubtless it never occurred. He writes 
bit like Mr Schulze in not letting find out if he entered the method
wrongly prior to fabricating a pass/fail result.

Mr Tarr does not write elsewhere so perhaps the reply would actually
answer the questions. We have been trying since 2000 AD to get that
'crucially' important quality of rudimentary truthfulness from the
Ossipoff students for quite some time. 

Also we need a list of who is and isn't, a student of Mike.

In case contact with Mike has left with no idea on how to know if a
rule is being used, you can read this introductory webpage here:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/politicians-and-polytopes/message/242
| Date:  Mon Jan 26, 2004  8:14 pm
| Subject:  Deriving the 3 candidate method, multiwinner monotonicity

If you find bits of text there that show me lying like your
dominant intellectual superior was (a crucial aspect is the superiority
of Mike), then please post such text here 

Also, don't forget to briefly refresh your self with the core beliefs
of a following the cult of claiming to have proofs that never will
exists the people who are members don't like math, etc., etc., etc.:

http://www.electionmethods.org/evaluation.htm





Craig Carey <research at ijs.co.nz>    Auckland, New Zealand