[EM] Being unfair at the very first step: issues for Jobst Heitzig

[Craig Carey]

This text appeared at a Usenet group of Cambridge University

| From: D.A. Galletly (dag1000 at eng.cam.ac.uk)
| Subject: Re: Cambridge election results
| View: Complete Thread (83 articles)
| Original Format
| Newsgroups: cam.misc
| Date: 2003-05-03 07:22:26 PST
|
|
| In article <slrnbb7cro.uf.ben-public-nospam at bunthorne.i.decadentplace.org.uk>,
| Ben Hutchings  <ben at decadentplace.org.uk> wrote:
| >Condorcet rules for selection for a single post.  But you probably
| >already knew that.
|
| Condorcet plus Cloneproof Schwartz Sequential Dropping, yes.  As I said
| in my speech.
| --
| +           Diana Galletly <dag1000 at eng.cam.ac.uk>          +
| +        http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~galletly/     +
| +        NEW: Sign up for a Poldovian T-shirt today !       +
| + http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~galletly/poldovia.html +
|


The author, Ms Galletly (of this mailing list, formerly), seems to have
some confidence in the AD 2003 Voting Matters of Mr Marcus Schulze.

The text above does not mention that the article attempted to say that
the method of Mr M. Schulze, was monotonic.

I expect that Ms Galletly would pull the plug on her "yes" message that
could be read as implying some trust in the articles of Mr SChulze.
The article is here: edition 17:

   http://www.mcdougall.org.uk/VM/MAIN.HTM

Condorcet is not monotonic. I argue for that result below.

Also Condorcet will make a candidate with under 1% of the vote, be a
winner, when there are 3 candidates.

The Alternative Vote, will do the same, and be seemingly wrong
in doing so, but maybe 9 candidates is the smallest number of candidates
that allows that problem to be demonstrated.

For the STV community, it is never accepted that a public will prefer
A over C, if both preferring A over B, and B over C.

Instead the ballot paper (AC) is simply itself. If it is not a sincere
paper then MR OSSIPOFF might be making some statements on the
importance of things being what "YOU" want: the audience failed to
get the mistakes out. In addition to implying that must or else not
understand, he occasionally says that the slightest change would be
something different. Mr OSSIPOFF said in an e-mail that he had stopped
doing research. I never actually saw an e-mail saying that he had
resumed doing research.

If he wants a modified Nelder-Mead optimizer that fits a mid-way plane
and that is better at optimizing Boolean barrier nonlinear optimization
problems then he can e-mail me.

Let me get two fundamental core beliefs of the pairwise comparing
devotees, who apparently try to censor out the two matters (perhaps
to drop Americans into lies and not provide clues on how to get out).

It would be great to get a long sequence of explanations from Mr
Heitzig ending with some comment that is both good and enduring.

I guess our incompetents believe that candidate B can start losing when
the "A over B" number (or Mr Schulze's paper) gets bigger. Much over
1/2 of all the subtotals measuring the strengths of the graph's arrows,
should never change sign as their terms are changed.

There is no principle in saying that candidate B is harmed equally
by (AB) and (AC). Anyone in England would possibly insist on having
candidates be helped by papers that (positively) name them.

It is not so in the lies of the Condorcet world. I saw the paper of
Mr Steve Eppley imply the show-stopping moronic problems using very
obscure wording inside of parentheses. That was that paper that
Mr Eppley co-authored with D. G. Saari.

To get it wrong implies a low intelligence and to remain in the
wrong for every 5 year interval, could indicate inappropriate
stubbornness. Also there is no use of logic, and no use of
geometry and symbols, and a total rejection of the idea of
fairness and perhaps that is how 2 Germans can never get around to
saying that preferring numbers over optimizers and symbolic
algebra, creates an (obvious) problem of implicitness preventing
the solving of the equations. This could be a list that survives
from month to month, or until Adam Tarr lets us know that he
concluded something. (Why not 20,000 statements? : the Catholic
catechism of the Pope)

Also, suppose that the ballot papers are all these papers:

    a0 * (A)  +
    ab * (AB) +
    ac * (AC) +
    and other papers.

Then increasing the "ab" Real number will tend to cause B to lose
since appearing with a positive weight in the Heitzig-ian "A over B"
total. 

There is so far very little chance that ideas from Mr Heitzig and
Schulze could be true. Next I expect to get no comments from Mr
Heitzig or Mr Shulze. Things were really bad with Mr Schulze's replies
in the last year: claiming to not understand his own topic that I
wrote on, when the topic is too simple for that to seem bona fide.

So it is just shown that all Condorcet variants will be failed by the
rule of monotonicity. 

Mr Schulze has unfollowable arguments and doubtless was unprotected
against this type of mistake:

  After reading MIKE OSSIPOFF, Mr Shulze might have formed a view
   that pairwise comparing variants contain "for loops". In a write-up,
   subscripts of superscripts would tend to occur. It is all on track
   to hiding the method's failures under monotonicity, inside of the
   (n-1)-dimensional cuts between the cases.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Persons that use my axioms would be able to say this:

  [Overview of upheld Fairness Principle]

  (1) Everyone else's ballot papers have a power under 1.
  (2) My ballot paper has a power that is always 0 or more.
  (3) On noting these were rules that check other rules, then I can
    make use of that and then I have a right to reject lies and untrue
    teachings of other teachers, including teachers of pairwise
    comparing mistakes.

Suppose that Mr Jobst Heitzig is a economist and a teacher. 
Suppose MIKE OSSIPOFF flipped and became a student of JOBST.

Suppose that in 2015, Adam Tarr goofed up and finally succeeded in
writing down a clarification of MIKE's FBC.

Unlike people that accept fairness, the students of Mr Heitzig lack
the moral core that allows them to defend the Heitzig wrong faith.

I could never say that Mr Heitzig is a mathematician: he defends the
personal ideal of having the wrong winner. 

What the 2 Germans have got on offer is desire that has trashed their
private thinking even before their first appearance. If I am reading
this list right, the 2 men in Germany believe that they should not use
desire instead of reasoning, inside of the topic of preferential
voting. One problem with authors privately replacing fairness with
desire is that Mr Lanphier's success could be tripled and the
mailing list could get 20,000 more e-mails without a mentionable amount
of academic progress.

The mailing list is apparently running satisfactorily in the mind of
Mr Robert Lanphier. As far as I am aware, any actuio he would take
would be an action to make the mailing list worse, and he understands
the American stance regarding truth versus volume.

I recently saw Mr Rob Richie experimenting with the name "RCV" (a new
name for the Alternative Vote, and the name that San Francisco city
chose. Former CVD member MIKE of hotmail.com might need to switch off
the city lights on his "IRV" name and start to adapt. Oh, MIKE was
settling in to using an invalid argument to criticise the
Alternative Vote. MIKE is the man who tells "you" that "you" got it
wrong if "you" think that the "favorite" is the first preference.
Much dumber than having the "favorite" be the second preference
candidate, is following after Shulze and making the candidate that
is blessed with a rise to its subtotal, being not even named.

I can try this: in the more intelligent Commonwealth, no candidate
is helped or harmed when not actually even named. However this list
is sort of useless: a while back Approval enthusiasts tried to
dominate it but maybe their topic is just too dull for them to
retain an interest.

I need to keep lucid comments on the algebra of fairness, confined to
my own mailing lists, e.g. the single-transferable-vote mailing list.
Unfortunately the theme of doing research seems to be a powerful
repellent to American university students. 

I suppose Jobst Heitzig wont want to explain why he makes his mistakes
at the start and is stuck there and upholding the idea of making
mistakes far too early. We could have all the rights be bones in
a backbone, and the Germans could be refusing to cooperate in the
police investigations on who gunned down the X-ray technicians.

This woman has online X-rays of an organ that is not a German government
offical's first organ of reasoning:

   http://www2.georginaverbaan.nl/index.html
     Breast uncovered

I see that DW TV periodically has articles on searching for new
spouses. Since not getting principles on how to be fair to individuals,
maybe Jobst could free up some knowledge on how to pick a partner.

Some Christians believe that children get taught worthless or wrong
material and then it has to be redone because the first teachings
were simply not good enough (German bible schools).





Craig Carey <research at ijs.co.nz>    Auckland, New Zealand
Nullo metro compositum est (trans. It doesn't rhyme)