[EM] "Approval" name out; VM17 Schulze theory fails; 80k Sincere Votes equals 80k Voters?

[Markus Schulze]

Dear Craig,

you wrote (30 Jan 2005):
> Markus wrote (29 Jan 2005):
> | Please read:
> | http://alumnus.caltech.edu/~seppley/Set%20Operators%20and%20Binary%20Relations.htm
>
> That webpage does not define the idea of both "prefer" and "strictly prefer".
> There is absolutely nothing of interest in the page. Eppley's page is completely
> unable to take the fall for your decision make your "A preferred over B" Boolean
> of the list "(A)" be True when a knowledge of international English can only lead
> to the knowledge that that False would be the correct answer.
>
> You behave as if the only way to get your office running properly is to freight
> in hundreds of rats and to fend of rising suspicions about your inability to
> produce fair voting methods, you keep citing dates and time when sighted at rat
> running past furniture. Here is one 'rat' here:
>
>     -----------------------------------------------------------------
>     Call a binary relation R on a set S transitive if and only if
>         [[xRy and yRz] implies xRz] for all x,y,z Î S.
>     -----------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Public opinion on what the mathematical idea of an STV ballot paper is, is solidifed,
> so we certainly don't want Mr Steve Eppley's latest views on how to word up a
> definition of transitivity.

I mention Steve Eppley's website to show that the concept of binary relations is
not used only by me. Of course, I could also say "Go to your nearest library!" or
"Search Google for 'binary relations'!" or "Read some scientific journals!"

*********************

You wrote (30 Jan 2005):
> The webpage of Mr Eppley does not define the word "prefer" and it does
> not define the term "strictly prefer". You gave another dud reference
> and you did not give the purpose. Maybe it was another mistake.

As I said, _how_ you call a concrete binary relation in the end is of no
concern as long as it has the required properties. I wrote (12 Feb 2004):

> What a "candidate" is or what ">" or "=" means is of no concern as long
> as the above six properties are met. For example, the "candidates" can
> be sorts of apples and ">" can mean "is sweeter than".

*********************

You wrote (30 Jan 2005):
> Markus wrote (29 Jan 2005):
> | Craig wrote (29 Jan 2005):
> | > Mr Schulze didn't mention tests that didn't pass his method.
> |
> | Already in the published version of my paper, I mention that my method
> | violates participation, mono-add-top, mono-remove-bottom, later-no-help,
> | and later-no-harm. Furthermore in the extended version of my paper,
> | I mention that my method also violates consistency, mono-raise-random,
> | mono-sub-top, mono-raise-delete, mono-sub-plump, and independence from
> | Pareto-dominated alternatives and that it doesn't guarantee that the
> | winner is always chosen from the uncovered set.
>
> Oh, I got that wrong. You normally have nearly no success in finding me
> making mistakes.

Good joke!

Markus Schulze