[EM] Remember Toby

[fsimmons at pcc.edu]

As I remember it, when Toby settled on CSSD, we made a huge psychological mistake: we got bogged 
down in the description of the CSSD algorithm for the public proposal.  I think that was a fatal mistake, 
and I would like to propose a strategy for avoiding that mistake in the future. 
 
It was a mistake because it gave the impression that to understand the proposal, you have to 
understand a detailed algorithm. 
 
Here’s an analogy:  

Complicated Version of the law of refraction: 
Snell’s law says that the ratio of the signs of the angles of incidence and refraction are equal to the 
ratios of the speeds of light in the respective media at the interface where the refraction takes place.  
This is way too technical for the average man on the street.
   
Simple version of the law of refraction: Fermat’s Principle's says that light takes the path of least time.  
The man on the street can understand this.  Snell’s law gives a way of finding that path of least time for 
the technician.

What is analogous to Fermat’s principle in the context of CSSD?

Answer: the beatpath winner idea.  We elect the alternative A with the strongest beatpaths to the other 
alternatives.  This means that for each alternative B, alternative A has a stronger beatpath to B than B 
does to A.  Once the concept of a beatpath is explained (and that its strength is that of the weakest link) 
then the man on the street can understand this definition of the method.  The CSSD algorithm is the 
technical part like Snell’s law,that the man on the street doesn’t have to worry about.