[EM] You all missed JOBST's Big Bang where wrong "A over B" numbers are created

[Craig Carey]

At 2004-09-06 12:26 +0200 Monday, Markus Schulze wrote:
>Dear Craig Carey,
>
>you wrote (6 Sep 2004):
>> MR SCHULZE 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 SCHULZE's algorithm: MR
>> SCHULZE was censoring out the same part that MR HEITZIG
>> was not commenting.
>
>I don't consider the used algorithm to be a part of the
>proposed single-winner election method. There are tons
>of shortest path algorithms in the scientific literature.
>My favorite shortest path algorithm is Floyd's algorithm
>(aka Floyd-Warshall algorithm) because it has a polynomial


That fails to define any method. 


>runtime and a very short source code. However, neither in
>the definition of the Schulze single-winner election method
>nor in the proof that it is well defined nor in the proofs
>that it satisfies Pareto, monotonicity, resolvability,
>independence of clones, and reversal symmetry I refer
>to a concrete shortest path algorithm.
>

What proof. A general rule that has a good chances, is that every
proof Mr Schulze made about Condorcet variuant, is wrong. We see the
huge error of keeping the definition secret and then moving from there
(and failing and many many chances to disclose the object at the
centre). It would be safer to say that Mr SHULZE has been carefully
studying how MR OSSIPOFF thinks. (I still don't know if MIKE lives in
Cuba or not).

You would seem to be know nothing worth knowing if seriously believing
that Pareto is a test to use. Mr Schulze is not an expert who does not
really accept a rule until a method is derived from it. Mr Schulze
seems to test with scavanged rules.

But to hide the error of the 5 categories, he made sure that hus
article never contained enough information to allow all reasonable
observers to know how find the pairwise numbers that go on the edge of
the graph.

Mr Schulze seems to only defend his falseness in the paper by either
referring to the paper or (similarly) asserting or implying that the
paper existed.

No intelligent member of he public can make a convincing proof about
an undefined algorithm. I have tried hard to identify how he said
nothing. Mr Schulze appears to fully lack intelligence while I write.
It can last for months, I was observing that he can eventually make a
comment and sport for all to see, the real accomplishment of seeming
to be response. At the end of it: there is no method that can be
checked.

Voting Matters has the same problem with worthless claims. Mr I.D.
Hill wrote a critical articles almost suggesting that untrue
information from Mr Schulze is problem with Mr Schulze rather than the
editor.
I can understand the view.


>Markus Schulze
>----
>Election-methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info

I have seen Schulze write on the Floyd thing before. In that previous
event Mr Schulze seemed to require that the audience correctly insert
the idea. It is an idea that has nothing to do with voting.

The whole ghastly pesudo academic paper was trashed by Schulze and on
close examination that the purpose was almost certainly to conceal
that he was devotee of MR J HEITZIG's hope of keeping the wrongness of
the 5 category (..A..B..) .. (..A..) big bang blunder concealed.

----

To summarize, Mr Schulze does not stop a dribbling out a tiny number
of paragraphs every month and keep that up for years.

As dancing on some no longer needed bodies, the individual in Berlin
does not day he is fair; and does not say that a method ought be fair.

He is motivated by desire and does not interact with reasoning that
appears. What's new is that Mr Schulze is sending in messages that
fail to defend himself. As litle as 2 seconds of thinking is what we
get from Mr Schulze. A lot more time has t obe used by Mr Schulze to
get out of the "still lying about the pass under monotonicity"
allegation I am still making.

Two seconds is 5*(10**(-4) man hours. What worse is that Mr Schulze is
using withholding to make the speed at which the public learns, fall
in behind the extraordinarily slow mental progress.

There is an excessive reliance on memory.

Mr Schulze had his paper trashed so as to hide the big bang
subtotalling error.  I assume Mr HEITZIG is planning on doing exactly
the same. 

What Mr Schulze ought not do. is not leave gaps in his argument
and imply that the reader has to create a idea that joins two
unacceptable types of unfairness, and spend the years of withholding
the missing part. He becomes a person no facts and good reasons for
withholding facts. He out at the loo or something, when getting
criticised. Eventually he returns to make an empty comment and
ensure that no defence was attempted. It is fishy how Mr Schulze
scavanges for wrong principles.

My argument about cutting a method up into cases across all the
non-monotonic faces seems to be what Mr Shulze would do. That would
nuke the possibility that his claim of monotonicity is trustable.
There is other problem of the method be undefined. Also the
subscripts cam from no where.

When is Mr SCHULZE going to stop writing absolutely worthless
and strangely stupid e-mail messages to EML (and maybe the UK
Stv-voting list) that have no interest in truth and seem to only
exist to create a proof that Mr Schulze remembers things. E.g.
the date he submitted an article, or a date he actually
responded to some allegations.

Why does Mr Schulze (and later HEITZIG) be very very silent on
the topic of fairness. Even Mr Lanphier's electorama.com has the
word "fair[...]" on the main page.

----


I shall quit. Unlike Mr SCHULZE, I prefer to avoid false talk
(i.e. instead of creating such). It seems the much superior STV
world is not appreciate. I guess that the lack of knowledge is
part and parcel of "eeling away". I could name some names. Maybe
in a future e-mail.









Craig Carey <research at ijs.co.nz>    Auckland, New Zealand
Javascript MEDLINE: http://www.ijs.co.nz/med/medline.htm