[EM] Markus, 11 March, 0240 GMT

[MIKE OSSIPOFF]

Markus--

I'd asked:

    But which of my criteria use the term "majority-rejected"?

You replied:

Did I say that one of your criteria uses the term "majority-
rejected"?

I reply:

You said that my criteria apply only to MinMax because  "majorilty-rejected" 
applies only to MinMax (whatever you mean by MinMax).

Markus said:

You used the concept of "majority-rejected"
candidates when you proposed MinMax(winning votes).

I reply:

I've used that term, but it has no role in defining my criteria, and so It 
gives you no justification for your claim that my criteria apply only to 
MinMax (whatever MinMax means).

You continued:

In your
26 Feb 2005 mail, you claimed that you didn't only propose
MinMax(winning votes), but that you proposed "winning votes"
methods in general.

I reply:

That's correct.

You continued:

You wrote (26 Feb 2005): "He [= David
Gamble] asked who first proposed the wv Condorcet methods.
I'd proposed the wv Condorcet methods."

I reply:

Correct.

You continued:

But your concept
of "majority-rejected" candidates cannot be used for other
methods than MinMax.

I reply:

Let's grant that as correct, but is there a point that you're trying to make 
with it?

You continued:

Therefore, the fact that you proposed
your concept of "majority-rejected" candidates to motivate
MinMax(winning votes) doesn't support your claim that you
proposed "winning votes" methods in general.


I reply:

Excuse me, but did I use "majority-rejected" to support my claim that I 
proposed "winning-votes" methods in general?

...because the fact that I used the term "majority rejected" doesn't relate 
in any way to my claim that I was the first proponent of winning votes 
Condorcet.

I proposed winning-votes Condorcet, and I've used the term "majority 
rejected". If you're saying thast there's a contradiction there, you haven't 
been clear with us about why you think there's a contradiction.

But I hereby give you permission to stop talking about "majority-rejected". 
I don't claim to have a precise definition of "majority-rejected". Nor do my 
other definitions use "majority-rejected". But, just for you, I'll post a 
definition of "majority-rejected", within a few days, when I've caught up 
with EM e-mail--though that definition isn't needed, since that term isn't 
used in my other definitions.

You continued:

You wrote (7 March 2005):
    Does BeatpathWinner meet your criterion that you posted
as an alternative wording for SFC?

I reply:

To be honest, I haven't yet understood when you use the term
"CSSD" and when you use the term "BeatpathWinner".

I reply:

You mean, other than that I've defined both termss on EM, and at
http://www.barnsdle.demon.co.uk/vote/sing.html?

Maybe you should have said "To be less than honest,..." :-)

CSSD stands for Cloneproof Schwartz Sequential Dropping. It's equivalent to 
BeatpathWinner.

I'd say that BeatpathWinner is another name for what you refer to as 
"Schulze's method", except that your meaning of "Schulze's method" has 
apparently changed, and so I don't know for sure which meaning you're using 
these days.

So, I'm going to give you a definition of BeatpathWinner, since you say that 
you don't understand what the term means:

May I assume that you know what a beatpath is? And that you know what is 
meant by the strength of a defeat, in wv methods?

1. The strength of a beatpath is defined as numerically equal to the 
strength of its weakest defeat.

2. X has a beatpath win against Y iff the strongest beatpath from X to Y is 
stronger than the strongest beatpath from Y to X.

3. A candidate wins if no one has a beatpath win against him/her.

[end of BeatpathWinner definition]

So then, I repeat my question:

Does BeatpathWinner comply with the criterion that you posted as your 
version of SFC?

You continued:

(To the
other readers: Both terms are only different names of the
Schulze method.)

I reply:

But you said that, to be perfectly honest, you don't understand those two 
terms. Now apparently you do understand them. Well then, why didn't you 
answer my question?

You continued:

In the past, you used to prefer the term
"CSSD". So is there a special reason why you don't ask?:
"Does CSSD meet your criterion that you posted as an
alternative wording for SFC?"

I reply:

Yes there is. Here's the special reason: BeatpathWinner and CSSD are 
equivalent, and so, in terms of their results, they can be regarded as the 
same method (though, in terms of implementation they're different methods). 
We needn't debate whether they're the same or different, need we?

That's my special reason for using the term "BeatpathWinner/CSSD".

But, if it would make you happy,

Does CSSD meet your criterion that you posted as an alternative wording for 
SFC?

Mike Ossipoff

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