[EM] Markus, 21 March, '05, 0603 GMT

[MIKE OSSIPOFF]

Dear Markus--

You quoted yourself and me:

>I wrote (19 March 2005):
>Well, the term "MinMax" is less ambiguous than
>your term "Plain Condorcet", since this method has
>absolutely no resemblance to Condorcet's proposals.
>Actually I prefer the term "Simpson-Kramer".

You wrote (20 March 2005):
>Now you want to give me complete credit for the
>initial proposal of PC.

You say:

Nope. You haven't invented MinMax. MinMax has already
been proposed e.g. by Simpson and Kramer (That's why the
MinMax method is frequently called "Simpson-Kramer".)
and discussed e.g. by Young and Fishburn. You only
mistakenly believe that Condorcet proposed MinMax.

I reply:

Simpson-Kramer is defined in the _Journal of Economic Perspective_, for 
Winter '85. That definition is of a method that elects the candidate whose 
greatest votes for him in a pairwise comparison is greater than any other 
candidate's greatest vote for him in a pairwise comparison.

That isn't PC. The fact that you say that MinMax is Simpson-Kramer while 
also calling PC MinMax shows that you're very sloppy with terms, and it 
shows that MinMax doesn't mean anything, since it's applied to more than one 
method.

List-members--Is there something familiar about this discusson? Yes. It took 
place a few days ago. This is what discussion with Markus is like. Continual 
repetition. We'll have a dozen copies of this discussion copied and recopied 
in successive days of the EM archives. Markus has only begun.

You quote me:

>I should point out that one of Condorcet's proposals,
>for when no one is unbeaten, was the repeated  dropping
>of the weakest pairwise-defeat. In other words: PC.
>I'm not going to encourage you to waste everyone's
>time with another debate about what Condorcet proposed.

You say:

It is interesting that you insist that Condorcet
proposed MinMax and simultaneously you say that
you don't want to discuss what Condorcet really
proposed.

I reply:

If that interests you, then fine. Condorcet didn't propose MinMax, because 
MinMax doesn't mean anything. And Condorcet certainly didn't propose 
Simpson-Kramer, at least as Simpson-Kramer is defined in the reference 
stated above. Now, if Simpson-Kramer is defined differently eslewhere, then 
that would mean that Simpson-Kramer likewise doesn't mean anything, because 
a method-name with 2 meanings isn't a method name.

But Condorcet proposed PC. Fishburn, among others describe the method that I 
call PC, and call it Condorcet. Is it possible that you haven't heard of 
that method being called Condorcet in voting system journal articles?

So yes, I assert that Condorcet proposed PC, and, in the same message, I 
state that I don't want to discuss what Condorcet proposed. That's one of 
your ways of wasting tremendous amounts of time and archive space. But you 
can accomplish that same goal just by repeating the same discussion 
consequtively 5 or 10 times, as you're doing now.

So I say: Though Condorcet proposed PC, and thouth that's obvious from the 
translations of one of his proposals, and implied by the fact that a number 
of academic authors refer to PC as "Condorcet, I hereby concede that 
Condorcet didn't propose PC, in order to end this issue.

You say:

I wrote (19 March 2005):
>I can only comment on how you motivated wv at the EM
>mailing list. Here, you used GMC from the very beginning.
>And GMC was one of your main arguments for using wv.

I replied:

>I introduced and proposed wv in 1994. I defined GMC,
>first mentioned GMC, in 1996 or 1997.

Well, the EM mailing list has been created in 1996.
Therefore, it is not possible that you introduced
and proposed wv in 1994 to this mailing list.

I reply:

You joined EM perhaps around 1996, but (big surprise for you) EM had been in 
existence for years before you joined. I introduced and proposed wv on EM in 
1994.

You quote me:

>My justification of my introduction and advocacy of
>wv was based on completely general arguments ...

You say:

... like the "Generalized Majority Criterion" (GMC).

I introduced wv years before I defined GMC.

My advocacy of wv when I introduced it was based on the completely general 
considerations that I've been describing in these postings, especially in 
the "Markus" posting before the one that was before this one.

Again, list-members, you probably notice something oddly familialr about 
this discussion, because it's been repeated several times during the past 
few days. That's Markus every time.

You continue:

However, in your 19 March 2005 mail you wrote: "At the time
when I introduced wv, there were only 2 methods known on EM
that could use wv or margins: PC and Smith//PC." So when
you use the term "completely general arguments" then you
are actually only talking about MinMax and Smith//MinMax.

I reply:

It isn't entirely clear why you think that when I introduced wv I must have 
only advocated it for PC and Smith//PC, because they were the only Condorcet 
versions known on EM. As I said, my advocacy of wv was based on completely 
general considerations, not on any particular method.
And those general considerations apply equally well to BeatpathWinnrer 
instance. I posted a demonstration, for instance, that BeatpathWinner passes 
WDSC & SFC, due to those genral facts about wv by which I advocated wv when 
I introduced it in 1994.

The matter of what Condorcet versions were available when I introduced wv 
isn't relevant to the matter of whether I advocated wv based on general 
considerations not dependent on a particular method.

Let's suppose, hypothetically, that BeatpathWinner, SD, SSD, CSSD and 
Ranked-Pairs were available at the time when I introduced wv. Now, say, this 
year or last year an additional method is proposed that could use wv. By 
your reasoning, since there's now a method on EM that could use wv or 
margins, and it wasn't here when I introduced wv, that means, to you that my 
advocacy of wv must be only for specific methods, and not general 
advocacy--because a new method has been proposed that could use wv or 
margins. Maybe you'll see the absurdity of that, but probably not.


You quoted me:

>Which Condorcet versions had been proposed on EM at
>the time when I introduced wv is quite irrelevant to
>the matter. I justified wv by general considerations
>not limited to a particular method.

You say:

Nope. Your GMC is satisfied by no other wv tie-breaking
strategy than the MinMax(wv) tie-breaking strategy. The
fact that you don't use GMC anymore doesn't change the
fact that you used GMC when you proposed and motivated
wv at this mailing list and that GMC was one of your
main arguments for wv.

I reply:

I introduced wv in 1994, and I defined GMC in 1996 or 1997. Since I defined 
GMC years after I introduced wv, it's odd that you think that GMC is 
relevant to what I meant when I introduced wv.

List-members: Yes, you've heard this discussion before. Like maybe every day 
for the past several days. That's why I say that there is something wrong 
with Markus.

Rob: The guidelines at EM's homepage request that members not keep repeating 
statements that have been refuted or answered, withoiut addressing the 
answers. Markus regularly and continually violates that guideline. Does 
anything happen when someone ignores EM's guidelines? Is there anything that 
a person can do to be kicked off EM. Apparently consistently ignoring EM's 
guidelines of conduct isn't enough.

Mike Ossipoff

_________________________________________________________________
Is your PC infected? Get a FREE online computer virus scan from McAfee® 
Security. http://clinic.mcafee.com/clinic/ibuy/campaign.asp?cid=3963