[EM] You all missed JOBST's Big Bang where wrong "A over B" numbers are created
research at ijs.co.nz
Mon Sep 6 00:24:46 PDT 2004
At 2004-09-05 15:47 +0200 Sunday, Jobst Heitzig wrote:
>> I think that this is silly,
>Don't expect me to appreciate that... If I would think something someone
>says on this list is silly (for example making unneccessary assumptions
>about preferences) I would certainly not post such a comment.
>> and that there are far more important voting
>> methods problems to worry about than this.
>EXACTLY! Don't worry about cyclic preferences! I certaintly don't since
>I know they are no problem at all for most serios methods we discuss
>here! That's exactly my point! Don't worry what properties the
>individual preferences might have that you might dislike or consider
>silly, since those properties just don't matter at all! Exactly what I'm
>saying all the time :-)
Mr HEITZIG is giving a command. It appears to be an invitation to
hang around with falsehoods. I suppose that MR HEITZIG does not plan to
There is a quick rule of thumb that can separate the goats from the
propagandists: it is this:
"If the accuracy infinitely precise ?"
I have never seen MR HEITZIG say that a preferential voting method should
be fair. Now advice comes from MR HEITZIG.
My view is that MR HEITZIG is a censor.
MR HEITZIG is using a trick that no competent mathematician would want:
he got the subtotally done in an unacceptable way.
So no suggestion from MR HEITZIG that he is interested in mathematics or
algebra would seem believable. WHY would a "mathematician" make a mistake
nearer the start, and then feel it right to post in e-mail messages that
talk about downstream complications of the mistake.
Some of the edges in the graph point in the wrong direction. MR SCHULZE
has such a evident absence of comments on the topic of creating the
numbers for the edge of the 1-winner graph, that it would seem that
there is at least 2 pairwise comparing experts censoring out that they
have an unacceptable way of counting the subtotals.
MR HEITZIG is part of a tiny community who makes a totally unnecessary
mistake. If he gets away with keeping that secret, then the EML list
is being wrapped up for years of dud comments from Germany.
MR SHULZE was showing real ruthlessness to me at the times I asked for
information on how he created the "X over Y" subtotal.
I still DO NOT HAVE MR SHULZE's algorithm: MR SCHULZE was censoring
out the same part that MR HEITZIG was not commenting.
If MR HEITZIG were to say that he is a mathematician, then the bottom
What have we got?: this; a person in Europe, who:
(1) privately keeps notes containing algebraic derivations; AND
(2) who make a major mistake in the 1st page. [Mathematicians tend to
not actually make blunders in derivations since, easily, everything
after a mistake would need to be be redone].
(3) And who jumps into a the electorama.com mailing list and ignores
the first and worst error. Above, this comment of MR H was quoted:
| Don't worry what properties the ...
MR HEITZIG censored out the wrongness of his subtotalling. It is a
simple idea. A problem is that Mr HEITZIG might have been expecting that
no one would know.
I saw a bit of EVIDENCE showing that MR S. EPPLEY also caught the bug.
He just does not stop at building over an error; but his writing
conceals that error. Unnecessary decisions guaranteeing that the
Condorcet variants are UNFAIR, are being withheld.
>> Again, it's an approximation. Most voters understand the concept of
>> rating stuff on a scale from 0 to 100, and pretty much an rough indication
>> of their relative preference strength (a gut reaction) will serve our
>> purposes quite well. Over a large group of voters, these individual
>> roughnesses will even out into a meaningful statistical pattern.
>> If you must have a more strict definition, though, I suppose you can
>> continue my definition above via a thought experiment. Basically, you can
>> define any rating in the scale through the use of halfway points.
>> Candidate A at 100 is my favorite candidate. Candidate B at 0 is my least
>> favorite. I can define 50 by making up an imaginary candidate C such that
Putting numbers on preferences would run into the problem that there is not
an acceptable rewording of the fairness rules.
Cycles that are seen could be the result of having wrong numbers on the
edges of the graph.
Suppose candidate "B" was not named by all the ballot papers. Suppose that
some of the votes have negative counts, so that candidate "B" could
possibly win. (If 'B' is certain to lose the argument may fail).
Then the use of the "A over B" number is prohibited by this meta-rule:
| Every part of the public that is not singled out should
| have a guarantee of the being ignored by all strict rules.
| Some complication from proportionality might affect not-named
| candidates or factions.
That meta rule is the right stuff, so the problem with MR HEITZIG's
theory could be one of these two explanations:
(1) It was wrong to create and use an "A over B" number;
(2) Mr HEITZIG's theory is mishandling negative counts.
Suppose the problem was (2). Then the first thing to do is to check to see
if (my) P2 axiom is passed. If 3 candidates then P2 says that adding 2(A)
is the same as adding (AB)+(AC), and adding (A)+(B)+(C) has no effect on all
3 win-lose states.
I guess that P2 is not held. I don't know, MR HEITZIG's workarounds for the
Condorcet paradoxes would reduce the chance of P2 being passed.
Anyway, it is wrong to use an "A over B" number.
I recall the MR HEITZIG used maths. I'd expect to see arguments about
2 sets of winners that are separated by a flat (n-1)-d plane, or many
comments reminding of that. Instead it seems that every Condorcet lunatic
that shows up, KNOWS instinctively (or as a result of adaptation) that
the wrong directions of the edges and the emotional purpose for wanting
that, starts off being secret. It seems that MR STEVE EPPLEY is beyond
help: why count (AB) and (A) as the same for B in the "A over B" number,
when there is hundreds of thousands of candidates.
Pushing a preference "B" off the end of a paper, before the rule
showed up or when not considering perturbations. requires that no
rule talk about B. HEITZIG aims to have statements about "B" when "B"
was not in the set of candidates that ballot papers named and
considered. MR HEITZIG should not pick up papers that DO NOT NAME "B"
and then use them for or against candidate B.
Arrow's IIA differs and is less correct.
MR HEITZIG has a pairwise principle that a public would find too
disagreeable to accept. What is the point of creating a graph of cycles
with some edges pointing in the wrong directions. He is violating the
meta-rule that has not-named candidates to be free of malicious and
adverse acts. Even in France, persons largely had to have their name
on an official document, before the beheading ("Don't worry") would be
MR EPPLEY does not have a good ability to identify his first errors
and just remove them. Has anybody ever seen a Condorcet devotee actually
express an interest in whether anti-corruptness rules would pass or
fail the preferential voting methods using pairwise comparing.
There is a short list of needed tests. MR EPPLEY misses some out.
Omitting axioms allows progress that incredibly slow or not occurring.
From the message of MR HEITZIG, it seems he studies cycles in all
ZERO WINNER elections (e.g. including the 1 candidate election).
I guess that MR HEITZIG is unable to algebraically derive the solution
to the two 2 candidate elections, using all his 3 candidate principles.
Before I finish, MR HEITZIG can treat us to speculations on how end users
react when one of his faulty (completley unprincipled) Condorcet
variants would cause unneeded harm to their life on the planet. E.g. the
comment could be on mayors. It is tradded off against something that
MR HEITZIG knows about (and which readers could be unaware of). The
principle might be indifference. This is not a CVD list where callousness
is on show.
Politicians and Polytopes (unpopular with USA though heavily advertised
by dmoz.org mirror pages (unlike stv-voting):
"Germany has to do a lot better than say that the time is not right"
A quote from the Reprisal Order issued by Field Marshal Keitel
instructing that fifty Soviet citizens would be shot for every German
soldier killed by Soviet partisans: "One must bear in mind that in the
countries affected, human life has absolutely no value...[t]he troops
are, therefore, authorized and ordered to take any measures without
restriction, even against women and children.",
More information about the Election-Methods