[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 

Warren continues:

There are, in fact, numerous reasons to focus on exponential densities in 
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