[EM] Re: James, meaningfulness and sameness

[MIKE OSSIPOFF]

James--

You say:

Mike,
	You are ignoring the obvious.

I reply:

..."the obvious" being that you think that all criteria should be defined 
the same way. Or at least that all preference criteria, for some reason 
known only to you, should relate voting to preference in exactly the same 
way.

Does it occur to you that the things that you say in the posting that I'm 
replying to are exactly the same things you said your previous posting, the 
one that I already replied to? Would it do any good to again tell you that 
the conduct guidelines of EM ask that you not keep repeating answered 
statements without speaking to the answers? If you feel that there is 
something incorrect about my answer, and say what you think it is, that 
would be different. But that isn't what you're doing. You're just repeating.

No, it doesn't matterwhether or not my answer "demolished" what you said. I 
answered what you said. You said it and I answered it. You said what you had 
to say, and so did I. So why keep repeating it as if it's new?

There's no reason for different criteria to be defined the same way.

I defined MMC as I did so that it would match Bruce Anderson's intent for 
that critrerion. I defined my CC as I did so that it would match the 
traditional intent of CC. I defined my PMC as I did so that it would match 
the intent of MC, and so that it wouldn't have the ridiculous malfunction 
that FHC has.

You said:

Like many ranked ballot criteria, MMC cannot be meaningfully applied to
non-ranked-ballot methods without being adapted in some way. You adapt it
as follows:

I reply:

No, I didn't adapt it to nonrankmethods. I adapted it to apply to all 
methods. There's a difference.


You continue:

Notice that MC is nothing more than a special case of MMC, where set S
contains only one member.

I reply:

No. It isn't. Your version, FHC, is. My version, PMC, is not.

You continue:

Hence, the only difference between the
definitions of MMC and MC is that one replaces "candidates in a set S"
with a single candidate, e.g. "candidate X".

I reply:

A preference MC version could be written like that. Your FHC is. My PMC 
isn't.

You're confusing one way of defining a preference MC with how a preference 
MC must be.

You continue:

"If a set of voters consisting of more than half of the voters prefer
candidate X to all the other candidates, and vote sincerely, the winner
should be candidate X."

I reply:

No that doesn't follow.  A criterion's meaningfulness doesn't depend on 
whether it copies another criterion. Your FHC loses meaningfulness when it 
says that Plurality has an advantage over Approval when, in regards to what 
makes Pluralitly pass FHC, Plurality has no meaningful advantage over 
Approval.. Your FHC malfunctions seriously in that way.

You continue:


	My question to you is simple: Why are your MMC and MC definitions for
non-ranked-ballot methods so different from each other, when MC is just a
special case of MMC where the majority set has one member?

I reply:

Let me paste something that I said earlier in this message:

I defined MMC as I did so that it would match Bruce Anderson's intent for 
that critrerion. I defined my CC as I did so that it would match the 
traditional intent of CC. I defined my PMC as I did so that it would match 
the intent of MC, and so that it wouldn't have the ridiculous malfunction 
that FHC has.

You continue:

If you use the
MMC definition in (2) to evaluate non-ranked-ballot methods for MMC
compliance, why not use the corresponding MC definition in (6) to evaluate
non-ranked-ballot methods for MC compliance?

I reply:

I don't use different criterion definitions for nonrank methods as compared 
to rankmethods. A criterion is no good if it doesn't apply universally and 
uniformly to all methods.

But as for why I define MC differently from MMC, see above.

I've answered your statements, objections and questions about this. I've 
answered them several times.

Once I called you an imbecile, and you said that you aren't an imbecile. Can 
you stop the repetitioin of answered statements that makes you seem that 
way?

Mike Ossipoff

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