[EM] thoughts on the pairwise matrix

[Paul Kislanko]

At no time did I ever say that "Condorcet is flawed". At various times I
said I was uncomfortable with the way some methods broke cycles, and many
times I said that claims made by people about it were unproven.
 
It is not up to me to "prove" that someone else's unproven assertion is
false, when I all I did was point out that it was an unproven assertion. 
 
 


  _____  

From: election-methods-bounces at electorama.com
[mailto:election-methods-bounces at electorama.com] On Behalf Of rob brown
Sent: Friday, December 02, 2005 4:36 PM
To: Paul Kislanko
Cc: Dave Ketchum; election-methods at electorama.com
Subject: Re: [EM] thoughts on the pairwise matrix


On 12/2/05, Paul Kislanko <kislanko at airmail.net> wrote: 


The only thing I asked was for people who make logical or mathematical
claims to prove them.

No one wants to bother, so I don't care.



Paul, you made claims that Condorcet was flawed, but refused to "prove" or
even defend your complaints.  While maybe not a mathematical proof, I felt
that I put forward a strong argument that your main complaint was not valid.
You replied with  "I don't have to support my argument". 


I think you are expecting an awful lot to post broad attacks on Condorcet,
refuse to back them up when called on them, and then ask us to prove the
methods valid to your liking.

-rob

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.electorama.com/pipermail/election-methods-electorama.com/attachments/20051202/88666b1c/attachment-0003.htm>