[EM] Warren: Your method

[Michael Ossipoff]

Where a & b are 2 consecutive ingegers, Jefferson, having b as its rounding 
point is very large-biased, and Adams, with a as its rounding point, is very 
small-biased.

So it stands to reason that there's some roundng p;oint inbetween that is 
unbiased.

But how could it be? Bias-Free's roiunding points show that, to make a 
cycle's s/q = 1, each cycle neds a different rounding point.

How to reconcile those two arguments?

I suggest that there is a point inbetween that will be less biased than the 
traditional methods. It will be crudely unbiased, with, in some sense the 
larger states being balanced with the smaller ones, in s/q. But, on a finer 
scale, it will be biased, and there will be plenty of measured correlation 
between q and s/q.

At least 3 of my 4 methods, and maybe all of them, will be more unbiased 
than your method.

Mike Ossipoff