[EM] Some myths about voting methods

[Paul Kislanko]

I know enough about data compression to know what logic and math is behind
it. 

It is evident YOU don't know anything about logic.

Exract a ranked ballot from '011', please. Tell me how you did it. 




-----Original Message-----
From: Warren Smith [mailto:warren.wds at gmail.com] 
Sent: Saturday, June 06, 2009 4:37 PM
To: Paul Kislanko
Subject: Re: [EM] Some myths about voting methods

wrong again.  In fact, every one of your 4 paragraphs is wrong.
Perhaps it'd help if you read a book about data compression.  There's
one by Witten.
Don't write me again on this.

On 6/6/09, Paul Kislanko <kislanko at airmail.net> wrote:
>  Evidently logic and math IS hard for you.
>
> Your example of how to encode the 6-choice ballot in the same number of
bits
> ignores the fact that in order to do so you need a table. Youo can NOT
> reproduce a ranked ballot from a 3-bit number WITHOUT adding to the
> information the 3x2 bit table to EVERY ballot.
>
> Don't call someone an idiot if you can't figure out that 24>3.
>
> You claimed a ranked ballot for three candidates can be reconstructed from
a
> 3-bit number. Then you added 6x3 = 18 bits "on the side" to show it was
> possible. I say all you did was show that you could reconstuct it using 21
> bits, which is even worse than the 6 bits I suggested.
>
> Don't call someone an IDIOT if *YOU* do not know what you're talking
about.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Warren Smith [mailto:warren.wds at gmail.com]
> Sent: Saturday, June 06, 2009 3:00 PM
> To: Paul Kislanko
> Subject: Re: [EM] Some myths about voting methods
>
> Dear Idiot.
>
> I did not claim 3>6, I claimed your calculation of 6 was wrong.
> In fact, I gave a calculation showing what you called 6, was actually
below
> 3.
>
> Then, you wrongly thought my calculation of the number 8/3 was, in fact,
> the number 8.
>
> This is not hard. Unless you have a very big blind spot.  Oh, that's you.
>
>
>
> On 6/6/09, Paul Kislanko <kislanko at airmail.net> wrote:
>> See what you said? You only need 8 bits to record a ranked ballot?
>>
>> You only need 3 to encode an approval ballot for three candidates. Now
>> you're claiming 8<= 3?
>>
>> Arithmetic? anyone?
>>
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Warren Smith [mailto:warren.wds at gmail.com]
>> Sent: Saturday, June 06, 2009 2:26 PM
>> To: Paul Kislanko
>> Subject: Re: [EM] Some myths about voting methods
>>
>> On 6/6/09, Paul Kislanko <kislanko at airmail.net> wrote:
>>> I'll try again.
>>>
>>> An approval ballot for 3 candidates can be encoded in 3 bits. 000 = no
>>> approvals, 111 = approva all, 100 = approva A, 110 = approve A and B,
> etc.
>>>
>>> A ranked ballot requires two bits per candidate. 01, 10, 11 for 1st,
2nd,
>>> 3rd, for 6 bits, you can't do it in fewer.
>>
>> --yes you can.   The rare 6 possible rank orders. Encode the 6 as
>> 6 different binary 3-bit numbers.  Further, we can encode three different
>> rank-order ballots (6*6*6=216) in only 8 bits, saving more bits.
>>
>>> 6 > 3 means more information in the ranked ballot representations.
>>
>> --learn arithmetic.
>>
>> --
>> Warren D. Smith
>> http://RangeVoting.org  <-- add your endorsement (by clicking
>> "endorse" as 1st step)
>> and
>> math.temple.edu/~wds/homepage/works.html
>>
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> Warren D. Smith
> http://RangeVoting.org  <-- add your endorsement (by clicking
> "endorse" as 1st step)
> and
> math.temple.edu/~wds/homepage/works.html
>
>
>


-- 
Warren D. Smith
http://RangeVoting.org  <-- add your endorsement (by clicking
"endorse" as 1st step)
and
math.temple.edu/~wds/homepage/works.html