[EM] To Paul & Markus, about criteria definedness

[MIKE OSSIPOFF]

Paul & Markus--

I´ve posted several different reasons why the use of "prefer" doesn´t cause 
a meaning problem for my criteria. If you disagree, then you need to address 
those arguments, to tell exactly which part you disagree with.

Or tell exactly which parts you think are unclear or undefined, etc., and 
why you believe that.

But here´s a better suggestion:

If, in any situation (configuration of candidates, voters, and voters´ 
preferences), with any method, that method can be shown to meet or fail a 
particular criterion, then that criterion is making a definite distinction 
among methods. It´s reliably distinguishing methods that pass from methods 
that don´t pass. That criterion can´t be said to be undefined. That´s a 
results-test for the definedness of a criterion.

True, the fact that no such situation has been posted doeesn´t prove that 
none exists, and that´s why I told why "prefer" doesn´t cause a meaning or 
definedness problem for my criteria. But I doubt that anything I say will 
convince you on that, so just post an ambiguous situation for one of my 
criteria.

So, if you think my criteria aren´t well-defined, or aren´t defined at all, 
then post a situation in which some method cannot be definitely said to pass 
or fail one of my criteria.

I´ve been answering vague, general claims that my criteria aren´t defined, 
but these  discussions aren´t going anywhere. So just post a situation that 
is ambiguous for one of my criteria, with some method, if you can find such 
a situation.

Mike Ossipoff

_________________________________________________________________
FREE pop-up blocking with the new MSN Toolbar – get it now! 
http://toolbar.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200415ave/direct/01/