[EM] Markus, criteria (was Markus reply)

[MIKE OSSIPOFF]

Markus said:

you wrote (25 Feb 2005):
>It's easy to make a general claim like that, which is
>why you make it instead of stating what you think is
>unclear in the definitions. Forget about asking me for
>clear definitions or convincing me. There's no need
>to convince me, if you can convince others. Tell
>the people here what you think is unclear about
>my definitions of my criteria.

You were asked several times to define WDSC, SDSC,
and FBC in terms of cast preferences. You always
refused to do so.

I reply:

Perhaps you misread my request. I said "Tell the people what you think is 
unclear about my definitions of my criteria."

I didn't ask you how you'd like to define different criteria. I asked you in 
what way you believe that the defensive strategy definitions are unclear.

By "in terms of cast preferences", I presume that you mean "Without 
mentioning preferences, as opposed to votes".

It isn't that I refused to define WDSC, SDSC & FBC without mentioning 
preferences. It's just that a criterion defined in that way would be a 
different criterion. It wouldn't be WDSC, SDSC, or FBC. However, I 
graciously and generously invited you to define such a criterion if you want 
to. At no time did I say that such a criterion couldn't or shouldn't be 
defined. I just assigned the task to you, since you're the one who wants 
such a criterion.

But are you trying to say that a criterion definition is unclear if it 
mentions preference, as opposed to only mentioning votes? If that's what you 
mean, then you should say it. And then, when saying it, you should 
demonstrate what is unclear about definitions that mention preference.

You used to keep asserting that definitions that don't mention preference 
could be written, that would be equivalent to my criteria. But when I asked 
you to post one, you posted something that was very obviously not equivalent 
to any of my criteria. You never posted a definition of a criterion defined 
without preference that was equivalent to my criteria.

You objected to criteria definitions that mention preference, on the grounds 
that your journal authors don't define criteria in that way.

Is it that you feel that preference isn't defined precisely enough? If so, 
then mabye you've forgotten that I posted a precise definition of preference 
to EM some time ago.

I'll add that definition to this posting, but first I'll comment on your 
other statements.

Markus continued:

And whenever someone submitted a definition for WDSC,
SDSC or FBC in terms of cast preferences and asked you
whether his definition corresponds with your intention
of this criterion, you always refused to answer.

I reply:

No, I always answered. And always the answer was no. The criteria that you 
or anyone else posted, intended to be equivalent to my criteria, were always 
not equivalent to my criteria. But if you thiink otherwise, post yours 
again, and let others judge for themselves.

Again, I don't dislike the notion of criteria equivalent to mine, but 
without mentioning preference, and I'd welcome such a criterion. Write one 
by all means.

Of course I'd welcome such a criterion, because you say that the academics 
don't accept criteria that mention preference, and so if you could write 
criteria that are equivalent to mine, but which don't mention preference, 
that would be great. Write them. I'd be glad for such criteria to be 
written.

You made one attempt,and I told you why it wasn't equivalent to the 
criterion of mine that you said it was equivalent to.  Richard made a few 
attempts. Most of Richard's proposals were easily demonstrated to not be 
equivalent to my criteria. Regarding one of Richard's criteria, his alleged 
FBC, I said that I didn't know if it was equivalent to FBC, but that, 
judging by the other attempts, there was no particular reason to believe 
that it was.

Markus continued;

By the way: I asked you several times to prove whether
my method (aka Schwartz sequential dropping, cloneproof
Schwartz sequential dropping, beatpath method, beatpath
winner, Schulze method) satisfies FBC. You always
refused to do so.

I reply:

No, I never refused to. I said that I didn't know. Since then, someone sent 
to me an example, probably 3 candidates, in which Condorcet fails FBC. I 
probably no longer have it.

By the way, you always say, "...my method (aka Schwartz Sequential Dropping, 
Cloneproof Schwartz Sequential Dropping, Beatpath Method, BeatpathWinner, 
Schulze method).

But you defined your method as one that could be better called 
Beat-or-tie-path-winner. It was defined in terms of paths consisting of 
defeats and pairwise ties. Wasn't that your main proposal?
Did you also propose BeatpathWinner, which uses paths of defeats?

Anyway, SSD and CSSD are not the same method. They have different stopping 
rules. Steve Eppley and I devised SSD and posted about it here. You probably 
had already posted a definition of CSSD, or something at least resembling a 
definition of CSSD, but neither of us had paid attention to it or knew about 
it at that time. No, I'm not trying to take credit by virtue of not having 
noticed a posting by you. Had you actually defined SSD?

You once said that you had, and posted a link to a posting of yours that 
allegedly defined SSD. But that definition was so vague that it defined 
nothing--or maybe everything.

I said I'd post a definition of preference:

Precise, abstract definition of preference:

A preference is an information record that consists of a designation of an 
ordered-pair of candidates and a designation of a set of voters. A  
preference is written in the form: "(some set of voters) prefer (some 
candidate) to (some other candidate)."

(End of preference definition)

A preference is often written by someone who is writing a criterion failure 
example, or a demonstration that a method meets a criterion.

That definition of preference is sufficient for my criteria that refer to 
preference.

Of course we all know what preference means in everyday usage.  But the 
abstract definition of preference, written above, is the only one that is 
needed for my criteria that mention preference, for the purpose of defining 
those criteria and determining whether a particular method meets them.
But the everyday interpretation of preference suggests why it's desirable to 
meet the criteria, and that's why I used the word "preference" in the 
criteria definitions.

It goes without saying that I wouldn't object to improvements in that 
abstract definition of preference.

Mike Ossipoff

_________________________________________________________________
Express yourself instantly with MSN Messenger! Download today - it's FREE! 
http://messenger.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200471ave/direct/01/