[EM] Markus, 22 Marach, '05, 0318 GMT

[MIKE OSSIPOFF]

Markus Schulze--

You say:

On the other side,
(using your claim that you hadn't understood the Schulze method)

I reply:

I fully admit that I didn't know then what you meant by "Schulze method". 
And, as for your posting of CSSD, I hadn't read it, and therefore didn't 
know what count rule you were describing. So yes, I hadn't heard of CSSD.

Youl continue:

you still claim credit for finding a heuristic for the Schulze
method that uses Schwartz sets.

I reply:

I've never claimed credit for Schulze's method. I don't even know what it 
is. No, don't bother telling me again; if I wanted to find out what it is, 
I'd look in the archives.

But yes, I said that I devised CSSD, though I fully agree that you devised 
and posted it first. So that hardly can be called claiming credit. And I 
said that I (with Steve Eppley's help) devised SSD. That, too, was with no 
prior knowledge about CSSD. And, as I said, CSSD is not SSD.

Let me digress a bit here, and say that you're attaching an unnecessary 
amount of importance to credit. As you may having noticed, for nearly the 
entire time that you've been on EM, I"ve shown no ilnterest in credit or 
priority. Likewise, before you joined the list. For nearly the entire time 
that I've been on EM, I showed no interest in credit or priority.

When did I take an interest in it? When I wanted to deny Russ the use of wv. 
So I correctly pointed out that I was the one who had introduced wv to EM. 
It's true. I introduced wv to EM.
It never occurred to me to assert that, till I chose to do so in order to 
deny Russ the use of wv. Of course, as I said, that depends on Russ's pride, 
if any, and Russ, last time I checked, still features wv at his website. So 
much for his pride and self-respect.

Likewise with SSD. First, of course I'm the first to admit that my claim on 
SSD isn't as strong as my claim on wv. You had described CSSD before I 
devised SSD. SSD is quite similar to CSSD, differing only in the stopping 
rule (SSD's stopping rule will make a lot more sense to the public). 
Contrary to what you imply, I don't claim that I have priority for CSSD just 
because I wasn't aware of your description of it when I devised it.

But though CSSD is similar to SSD, it isn't the same. That, and the fact 
that the idea for SSD came from Steve, rather than from you, give me 
justification for saying that I and Steve devised SSD, and that I was the 
first to post a definition of SSD. That definition that link to, and which 
you like to call an SSD definition is not an SSD definition. No amount of 
repetition of the same statements can change those facts.

But, though my motive in pointing out that I introduced wv was to deny it to 
Russ, there's another good reason for it: Because credit and priority are 
everything to you, and you've sometimes been ridiculously boastful. So, for 
that reason, it entertained me to point out that I introduced wv, and that, 
therefore, your "Schulze method" is nothing but one of several ways of using 
my wv.

As I said before, the merit difference between the various wv versions, such 
as BeatpathWinner, Ranked-Pairs, SSD, CSSD, or "Schulze's method", whatever 
that is, etc., is completely insignificant compared to the difference 
between wv and Margins. Or the difference between wv and IRV, etc.

I'd said:

>I'd come up with CSSD during the Debian discussion, when
>Norm criticized SSD for its lack of clone independence in
>small committees.

You say:

In this case, "Norm" refers to me. I wrote (24 July 2000):

I reply:

Actually, no. In this case, "Norm" refers to Norm. (Norman Petry).

I don't care what you posted about that. CSSD was devised because Norm, not 
you, objected to SSD's lack of clone-independence in small committees, 
during the Debian electioni-reform discussions.
You say:

Your "reply" is very long. But you didn't address what I wrote.
I wrote that the EM archives don't support your claim that "SSD is
an Eppley-Ossipoff method".

I reply:

I addressed that, and told why your statement is incorrect.

You continue:

The EM archives don't show any connection
between Steve Eppley and SSD.

I reply:

You can take my word for that. The archives do show that I was the first to 
post a definition of SSD to EM.

You continue:

They suggest (1) that you knew my method
when you proposed SSD

I reply:

How would they show that? Did I say something about your CSSD before I 
introduced SSD? No. All the archives show is that you'd posted CSSD before I 
posted SSD. Irrelevant. CSSD is not SSD.
If I had known about CSSD, CSSD would still not be SSD.

You continue:


, (2) that you knew that SSD _is_ my method,

I reply:

How do the archives show that I knew that SSD was your method. When I 
introduced SSD, I posted it as a new method, making no reference to any 
method of yours. So it's odd that you imagine that the archives show not 
only that SSD is your mehtod, but also that I knew that it was
:-)

You continue:

and (3) that you proposed SSD _because_ it is my method.

I reply:

It's funny that you think the archives show that. When I introduced SSD, I 
told why I propose it. I propose it because of its advantages, the criteria 
it meets, and because of its obvious and natural motivation and 
justification, and the fact that it makes no mention of cycles or beatpaths.

I certainly didn't say "I'm proposing SSD because it's Markus's method" :-)

You continue:

Thus,
the EM archives support my claim that SSD is a Schulze-Schulze
method.

I reply:

...but only in your imagination.

You continue:


And again you use your claim that you hadn't completely
understood the Schulze method as an argument.

I reply:

I don't know that that means. But I fully admit that in those days I 
mistakenly thought that "Schulze's method" meant BeatepathWinner. 
Beatpathwinner is the name that I coined and gave to the method that I still 
call by that name. I make no claim to the method that I call BeatpathWinner.

But perhaps what you're trying to say is that I claim, correctly, that I 
wasn't aware that you'd posted CSSD at the time when I devised and posted 
SSD. You keep repeating that I use that as an argument. I state it as a 
fact, but it isn't my justification for saying that SSD is my proposal and 
not yours. My justification for that statement is the fact that, though 
you'd posted CSSD, you had not posted SSD. I was the first to post SSD. 
That's why I say that SSD is an Eppley-Ossipoff method, not a Schulze method 
or a Schulze-Schulze method. :-)


You continue:

I suggest
that you should read what you're replying to, and then
it won't be necessary to repeat things for you so many
times.

I reply:

That repetition and re-use of something that someone else has just said is 
an elementary school argument technique.

I'd said:

>I had very productive offlist discussions. Excluding you

Youi added:

[= the EM mailing list] ...

I reply:

Wrong. "You" means you. You must use a funny dictionary, one in which "Norm" 
means "Markus", and "You" means "EM". :-)  Actually, when I said "You", I 
meant you (Markus).

I continued:

>from that discussion was Norm's
>suggestion, not mine.

You say:

So you say that "Norm" suggests that you shouldn't forward
interesting mails to this list?

I reply:

Is that what I said? I thought I said that it was Norm who suggested 
excluding you from the Debian electoral reform discussion.

No one on the Debian electoral reform committee suggested, or even 
considered, posting that committee's discussion to a mailing list.

Norm (Norman Petry) invited a few people from EM to participate in the 
Debian electoral reform committee. He said that he wasn't inviting you 
(Markus), because we already knew what method you would advocate, and 
because you weren't someone who would consider several proposals and 
objectively discuss them and choose between them.

You continue:

Who is this "Norm"? Norman
Petry?

I reply:

That is correct.

You continue:

Norman Petry isn't an active member since 3 years.

I reply:

And that is relevant to...what? For one thing, the discussion was a few 
years ago, when Norm sometimes posted to EM. For another thing, the matter 
of whether or not Norm was on EM at that time is quite irrelevant to what I 
said.

You say:

For the sake of completeness, Steve Eppley used the term
"Schulze criterion" for what Mike Ossipoff now calls
"BeatpathWinner Criterion". Steve Eppley wrote (23 Feb 2000):

I reply:

I don't call anything the "BeatpathWinner Criterion". I have, however, 
referred to Steve's Beatpath Criterion (BC).

After making that statement above, Markus then osts a quoted posting from 
Steve, in which Steve names and defines the Beatpath Criterion (Not the 
BeatpathWinner Criterion).

Markus says that Steve calls his criterion the "Schulze Criterion", but if 
you read the posting that Markus quotes below, you'll find that what Steve 
actually said was that his Beatpath Criterion isn't overboard like Schulze's 
Criterion. Not quite the same thing?

Markus, this shows that you're all confused, and that you haven't a clue 
what you're saying or what you're quoting.

Markus' quote of Steve follows:

http://lists.electorama.com/pipermail/election-methods-electorama.com/2000-February/003600.html

>I've been using a different criterion, which dispenses with
>the "absolute majority" requirement, and so is more general:
>
>    Beatpath Criterion (BC)
>    -----------------------
>    Let Vij denote the number of voters who ranked i ahead of j,
>    for any pair of alternatives i&j.
>
>    Let Bji denote the strength of the strongest beatpath
>    from j to i, for any pair of alternatives i&j.
>
>    If Vij > Vji and Vij > Bji then j must not finish ahead of i.
>
>The "ideal" majoritarian criterion, if it were not sometimes
>impossible to satisfy, is:
>
>    If Vij > Vji then j must not finish ahead of i.
>
>The Beatpath Criterion is possible to satisfy, and is not
>as overbroad (what Blake calls "restrictive") as what might be
>called the Schulze criterion (if Markus doesn't object to using
>his name this way):
>
>    If Bij > Bji then j must not finish ahead of i.

The thing is-is, this is a prime example of Markus' carelessness about the 
accuracy or inaccuracy of his statements.

Mike Ossipoff

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