Dear Mike, you wrote (11 March 2005): > I'd asked: > > But which of my criteria use the term "majority-rejected"? > > You replied: > > Did I say that one of your criteria uses the term "majority- > rejected"? > > I reply: > > You said that my criteria apply only to MinMax because > "majorilty-rejected" applies only to MinMax (whatever you > mean by MinMax). > > Markus said: > > You used the concept of "majority-rejected" > candidates when you proposed MinMax(winning votes). > > I reply: > > I've used that term, but it has no role in defining my > criteria, and so It gives you no justification for your > claim that my criteria apply only to MinMax (whatever > MinMax means).
Well, you introduced your concept of "majority-rejected" candidates in 1995 to motivate MinMax(winning votes). In 1997, I criticized that this concept of "majority-rejected" candidates cannot be used for other election methods than MinMax. Therefore, I introduced my concept of "majority beatpaths" as an alternative. You now claim that there was "no justification for your claim that my criteria apply only to MinMax". Well, I don't know which "criteria" you are talking about. You used your concept of "majority-rejected" candidates to motivate MinMax (winning votes) in 1995. You didn't use your "strategy free" criteria (which have been introduced by you in 2000). ********* You wrote (11 March 2005): > You replied: > > To be honest, I haven't yet understood when you use the term > "CSSD" and when you use the term "BeatpathWinner". (To the > other readers: Both terms are only different names of the > Schulze method.) In the past, you used to prefer the term > "CSSD". So is there a special reason why you don't ask?: > "Does CSSD meet your criterion that you posted as an > alternative wording for SFC?" > > I reply: > > You mean, other than that I've defined both termss on EM, > and at > http://www.barnsdle.demon.co.uk/vote/sing.html? > > Maybe you should have said "To be less than honest,..." :-) > > CSSD stands for Cloneproof Schwartz Sequential Dropping. > It's equivalent to BeatpathWinner. > > I'd say that BeatpathWinner is another name for what you > refer to as "Schulze's method", except that your meaning > of "Schulze's method" has apparently changed, and so I > don't know for sure which meaning you're using these days. > > So, I'm going to give you a definition of BeatpathWinner, > since you say that you don't understand what the term means: > > May I assume that you know what a beatpath is? And that > you know what is meant by the strength of a defeat, in > wv methods? > > 1. The strength of a beatpath is defined as numerically > equal to the strength of its weakest defeat. > > 2. X has a beatpath win against Y iff the strongest > beatpath from X to Y is stronger than the strongest > beatpath from Y to X. > > 3. A candidate wins if no one has a beatpath win against > him/her. > > [end of BeatpathWinner definition] I didn't say that I don't know what "CSSD" or "BeatpathWinner" means. I said that (in so far as both terms refer to the same method) I haven't yet understood when you use the term "CSSD" and when you use the term "BeatpathWinner". Markus Schulze ---- Election-methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info