[EM] Markus: BeatpathWinner algorithm

MIKE OSSIPOFF nkklrp at hotmail.com
Thu Jun 2 22:36:59 PDT 2005

Russ had said:

>You might also recall that Mike's "beatpathwinner"
>algorithm ...

I had replied:

>It wasn't "Mike's". It was from Steve, and I said so.
>Russ got the algorithm from me, just as I got it from Steve.
>As I said, it wasn't "Mike's" algorithm. I got it from Steve,
>and Russ got it from me.

Markus says:

That isn't quite correct

I reply:

Actually, it's quite correct.

Markus continues:

I had posted the Floyd algorithm in a
private mail (30 April 2000) to David Catchpole, Blake Cretney,
Steve Eppley, Rob Lanphier, Norman Petry, and you.

I reply:

And you sent that to us for no particular reason, as a sort of random cold 
advertising? :-)

Or was there perhaps a different reason why you sent it to us--like for 
instance because we'd previously mentioned it.

You see the problem: Why send that to us if we hadn't previously mentioned a 
similar algorithm?

You continue:

Obviously, you
didn't understand the Floyd algorithm because your implementation
had a runtime of O(NumberOfCandidates^5) while the Floyd algorithm
has a runtime of O(NumberOfCandidates^3).

I reply:

I'd never heard of the Floyd algorithm at the time that Steve devised his 
BeatpathWinner algorithm.

Steve hadn't heard of the Floyd algorithm at the time that he devised his 

Soon after, however, maybe in response to Steve's proposed algorithm, you or 
someone posted the Floyd algorithm.

It was what Steve had proposed, except that it only made one pass through 
the 3-candidate permutations. I assumed that that difference was an error 
that you'd made, and that the actual Floyd algorithm was the same as Steve's 
BeatpathWinner algorithm.

So I began calling Steve's BeatpathWinner algorithm "the Floyd algorithm". 
Then, when I found out that the Floyd algorithm has a difference, because it 
only goes through the 3-candidate permuations once, something made possible 
by rearranging the indices in an expression in the center of the loops, I 
posted that I'd just found out that the Floyd algorithm is different from 
Steve's BeatpathWinner algorithm. From then on, I didn't call Steve's 
BeatpathWinner algorithm the Floyd algorithm. I then started just calling it 
the BeatpathWinner algorithm.

Markus we've been all over this about 50 times, and that's just counting the 
last time we discussed it (endlessly, with you repeating everything again 
and again).

Markus continues:

But the fact that you
mistakenly called your implementation "Floyd algorithm" showed
that you read my mail and tried to implement that algorithm that
was described in my mail.

I reply:

Wrong. I initially did not call Steve's BeatpathWinner algorithm "the Floyd 
algorithm". I only began calling it that after you or someone posted the 
Floyd algorithm, probably in response to Steve's posting of his algorithm.

Later I called it the Floyd algorithm, for the reason stated above, until an 
EM posting pointed out the difference between Steve's algorithm and the 
Floyd algorithm.

And no, it was not my implementation. It was Steve's implementation.

Steve devised and described the algorithm before he or I had heard of the 
Floyd algorithm.

To other list members:

Last time Markus got started on this subject, he posted for about a month 
about it, repeating the same incorrect and already-answered statements 
dozens of times. That's what Markus does. He comes up with an incorrect 
chronology, and then endlessly repeats it. He's going to do so again this 
time too.

This time I won't reply to more repetition of it. This is my last reply to 
Markus on the topic of the BeatpathWinner algorithm, the Floyd algorilthm, 
and when I started calling Steve's algorithm the Floyd algorithm, and when I 
stopped calling Steve's algorithm the Floyd algorithm, and Markus's apparent 
claim that Steve got the idea from him. I've answered Markus's statements 
(again) here, and there's no need to keep doing so for the next month. 
Answering one time is just right.

So Markus, repeat your same statements again, and you'll have the last word.

Mike Ossipoff

Express yourself instantly with MSN Messenger! Download today - it's FREE! 

More information about the Election-Methods mailing list