[EM] Part 2, More Ossipoffness...
Michael Ossipoff
mikeo2106 at msn.com
Thu Jan 18 06:26:52 PST 2007
Warren continues:
whereas in fact this is not
a probability density for any A,B because it cannot be normalized.
I reply:
Then it's a good thing I didn't try to normalize it :-)
Warren can call it what he wants, but it's a curve that can roughly
approximate the observed density of states over the range of populations.
That's all I propose to use it for.
When Warren makes statements like that, consider his abysmal accuracy
record.
Warren continues:
There are, in fact, numerous reasons to focus on exponential densities in
preference
to all other simpleminded densities, for this prupose, and some of those
reasons are
explained in http://rangevoting.org/NewAppo.html .
I reply:
I've told why exp isn't usable for that purpose.
Warrren continues:
Fourth and finally, I rather object to Mike's apparent notion that it is my
responsibility to
find flaws in derivations he nowhere gives
I reply:
What? I've never said he's responsible for finding flaws. But if he claims
flaws, without saying what they are, then there's no reason for anyone to
believe him, especially with his demonstrated tendency for assertively and
arrogantly worded errors.
Mike Ossipoff
More information about the Election-Methods
mailing list