[EM] Mutt-brain SCHULZE; MinMax (Pairwise Opposition) A-wins equation

[Craig Carey]

Here are some serious very adverse comments about one Mr Marcus Schulze who
mainly prefers this mailing list.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I wrote privately to Mr Schulze. The man seems to be retarded and I had asked
him to proof read an attack. I doubt he is bright enough to send back a reply
saying: delete it instead of sending it. However I liked this part of my
unsent message:


| 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.
| · ·-----------------------------------------------------------------

Oh, that is a Steve Eppley rat.

Mr Schulze gave a URL at Mr Eppley's website and it was actually unable to
help Mr SChulze. But he censored that out. (Dumb!). Schulze was trying to
leave a sum undefined. He didn't even say it was linear, and he told this
mailing list that Epply had something on Boolean valued functions
accepting 2 atomic symbols as arguments. Schulze is preparing shit for us.

Since Eppley is a hyper-weak voting theorist in his own right, I might
as quote the URL Mr Schulze gave:

http://alumnus.caltech.edu/~seppley/Set%20Operators%20and%20Binary%20Relations.htm

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Mr MARCUS SCHULZE seems to have a life project out of doing research into all
the graduations between:

· (1) deliberately misdefining something, and

· (2) defining something in a way that deliberately inadequate.

That is such a grave and gross problem that I had Mr Schulze moderated at my 2
mailing lists on voting: politicians-and-polytopes, single-transferable-vote.

Snuffing his rights to speak does not seem to be enough.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I find that to be a major point.

And Mr Schulze heaps onto that: no thinking, no good purpose. and no
explanations, and an intent to get worse and worse.

Can we all think about this: you must carefully make your purpose be to
EXPLORE this over your REMAINING YEARS:

· (1) deliberately misdefine
· (2) know how to define in a way that deliberately inadequate.

E.g. keep producing more and more rewrites of the SCHULZE PDF and only meaning
"vote" and strictly preferring the word "voter".

I ask this:
· · "Is 'A' preferred over 'B' in this list (ACD) ? (1st is preferred more)".

The answer is "no". Otherwise take it to the lecturers at an English department
at some university.

Mr Schulze is deliberately creating the dispute with me and we shall find
that at every revision that he is not actually going to remove the problem
from his PDF.

Mr SCHULZE put on a really weak show last time: citing the existence of a
webpage of Steve Eppley without noticing that the vaguely introduced
webpage was irrelevant.

---------------------------

I saw that one man of Thailand who complained about the unavoidable vagueness
that present when speaking in Thai. With English, he could always create a
very precise that can not be misunderstood.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The topic is polytopes. And for the 3 candidate problem, if Truncation Resistance
is an axiom, then maybe there is no need to think beyond the (AB),(B),(C)
triangle.

Mr SCHULZE is like the chemist who can't measure traits of atoms, and who
can't think about atoms but who can only think about getting material
published in chemistry journals.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I should get some evidence from Mr SCHULZE that shows that he has written a
computer program in the last 40 years.





At 2005-01-29 17:27 +0100 Saturday, Kevin Venzke wrote:
>Craig,
>
> --- Craig Carey <research at ijs.co.nz> a écrit :
>> (3) MR VENKZE MAKES CLAIMS ABOUT THE SCHULZE METHOD
>>
>> The main idea here is that a novel way to get answers out of believers in
>> Condorcet variants, is to ask the wrong people.
>
>I guess you mean this in a complimentary way?
>
>> The Venkze version of the Schulze method MUST BE rejected since failing
>> a rule that is a strengthened Monotonicity (i.e. Woodall's
>> Mono-Raise-Random rule).
>
>We are short on rules satisfying Mono-raise-random...

You meant to say "short on methods".

(1) Your own MMPO method was passed by Mono-Raise-Random when 3 candidates
· unless I was sent a wrong A-wins equation.
(2) Could MMPO-whatever provide some trick to make STV variants be monotonic ?.
· No indication of that.
· You don't seem to desire to hae a 1/3 quota in a 3 candidate 1 winner
· election, so it could be time for you to start answering questions about
· Truncation Resistance or Later No Harm.


...
>> · · / ·|/ · A-loses
>> · ·/· ·Q
>>
>> Between P and Q there is an infinitesimally boundary between 2 of Mr Schulze's
>> cases. It must be checked before it can be concldued that the slopes are
>> within the bounds.
>
>Diagrams are created by following the rules of the method. If you prove
>e.g. that raising a candidate can't make him lose, according to the rules
>of the method, then you also prove that this can't occur on the diagram
>which is supposed to be based on the method.
>

It is cute to have found a way to found a numerical argument about the surface
of a polytope that happens to run correctly when many more than 3 candidates.

It is quite obvious that at this mailing list, if there has to be a hard choice
between these two:

· (1) calling a polytope a polytope, or
· (2) getting stuck for decades without ever telling us why,

then dimwits like Marcus Shulze & Heitzig & Eppley & OSSIPOFF
"strictly prefer" preference 2.


>> A better looking fairer Condorcet method than the Schulze method, might be
>> Mr Venkze's MMPO (1-winner) Condorcet variant, since seeming to not fail
>> Monotonicity-2 when 3 candidates.
>
>Hmm, that's interesting. I wonder what circumstances you checked?

Here is the simplified MMPO 3 candidate A-wins equation that I sent to you.
Why not simply look at it ?:

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
AW6 :=
· · (b + cb < a + ba and b + cb < a + ca and c + bc < a + ba and c + bc < a + ca)
 or (b + cb < a + ca and c + bc < a + ca and c + bc < b + ab and cb < ab)
 or (b + cb < a + ba and c + bc < a + ba and b + cb < c + ac and bc < ac)
 or (c + bc < b + ab and cb < ab and b + cb < c + ac and bc < ac) ;
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

It is of no interest to the more intelligent STV community since one candidate
can win when holding 0% of the vote (and none of the votes are negative).

"MMPO" is an acronym for "MinMax (Pairwise Opposition)" Condorcet varaint.

More information can be found here:
· · http://lists.electorama.com/pipermail/election-methods-electorama.com/


Here is an example showing that changing (AB) into (A) causes A to change
from a winner into a loser.

---------------------
(A) · · · 0 · · · 2 · · · <- increased by 2
(AB)· · · 2 · · · 0 · · · <- decreased by 2
(AC)· · · 1 · · · 1
(B) · · · 3 · · · 3
(C) · · · 4 · · · 4
---------------------
· · · ·A wins ·A loses

>
>Suppose A wins and his score is from opposition from C. Suppose C is close,
>and gets max opposition from B. Then changing the ballot BA to AC might
>have no effect but to decrease C's score (which is good for C).
>
>So I think it can't be right, that 3-candidate MMPO satisfies Mono-2.
>

I don't see wrong term in AW6 and I don't follow your claim.

These two are different:

· · (1) Combining Monotonicity and Truncation Resistance;
· · (2) Mono-Raise-Random (= Monotonicity-2).

Suppose 'A' is the candidate under consideration. With the 2nd the RHS
rewrite can only occur if the 'A' preference moves to the left.

--------------------




Craig Carey <research at ijs.co.nz>    Auckland, New Zealand

Fac ut gaudeam. [From Latin, Make my day]