I guess Mr Mike Ossipoff needn't comment on this
At 01:14 00.09.14 +0000 Thursday, MIKE OSSIPOFF wrote:
>Mr. Carey wrote-
>
>Mike Ossipoff has been writing about reducing/minimizing the
>"need for insincerity".
>
>I request that the "need for insincerity" numbers be stated.
>The moment they are defined, there could be a simple minimizing of
>the need for insincerity quantities over all the finite number of
>different sets of possible winners. Imaginably some highly
>unsatisfactory preferential voting method would be found but I
>guess that Mike Ossipoff can't estimate what the need for
>insincerity is.
>
>I reply:
>
>There are several degrees of insincerity: order-reversal,
>insincere equal ranking of candidates for whom one votes, and
>truncation.
>
>Feel free to number those degrees of sincerity if you want to
>rate insincerity numerically.
>
>As I said in my posting, there are various degrees of limiting
>to whom the protection applies. FBC protects eveyone. SARC protects
>all who vote undominated strategies--which means everyone.
You didn't answer my questions. I ask that you do do that, unless
the idea of insincerity is irrelevant to the plan for rejecting
preferential voting methods.
How many definitions of SARC do you have?. I guess you would tell
me 'one good definition'. I remind you that an aim here is to identify
faults in your definitions. Not withstanding you public claim to want
to remove ambiguity from your definitions, I am sure I speak for every
list reader following your comments, by saying that you are not
believed. I presume the purpose of your failing to refer to definitions
is so that you can regard this list a wasteland into which you can
flood with your explanations of the moment.
However you hardly refer to the Russ definitions. I asked about the
properties of sincerity and (in the following message) the need for
insincerity. The Russ Paielli definitions are your own, I shall
presume.
The readers that have been reading what you say may find that you
always make the blunder of telling us about what you think.
You have more than one of the definitions. You are expert in switching
the definitions and switching them back again. This is what you do
when you explain. A corollarly is that all that you write is rightly
totally rejected by your audience, when the secret switching of
meanings was deduced. It is certainly more likely suspected when you
fail to refer to the wording of your definitions. Approximately,
Mike Ossipoff never refers to the wording of his definitions (although
there was a recent reference when commenting on a tiny fix).
If you do not refer to the definition then you are not using logic
and inference and not making the statements a corollary. It is my
view that the definitions can not be repaired by subsequent
explanations. If Mike wants to simulate an interest in the actual
meaning (and wording) of his definitions (SARC, FBC, WDSC, etc) then
the definitions could be amended inside this mailing list. Otherwise
I guess it would be reasonable to ban all discussion on Mike Ossipoff's
definitions.
The explaining is a cover for the retention of the lack of definition.
The same mind that created the definitions creates the explanations
and the events are less than satisfactory. Certainly, truth hardly
seems to be a result.
How can a subscriber find out how different SARC definitions you have?.
There is an online copy, and versions in your thoughts. The latter
rules seem to have a quality of actually having tested methods. That
is astonishing. No one else seems to have achieved that (with the
possible exception of Marcus Schulze).
The tests may not be reproducible. Mike Ossipoff has put the idea that
the applier of the rule be god or similar. That is unclear
mathematically. I guess Mike pretends to unify his thinking with
unknown election subjects and then make pronouncements. It is not able
to be verified. Above all it does seem to be so very satisfactory to
Mike Ossipoff that he has not yet replied to my comments that his
"criteria" need a lot of data collecting spirits of trailing van loads
of trained psychiatrists to extract data on what voters like.
I suppose Mike has carefully considered the topic by now, so since
this is one of the lesser problems with Mike's voting theories, I
shall not write further on the need for a living entity to be a
omniscient god when certifying for a brief duration, a voting method.
It is suspect and I ask Mike Ossipoff if he believed that he alone
would be applying the Russ Paielli rules to methods. So far the
amount of data on whether methods pass or fail has been very little
indeed. It is as if he can't figure out himself how exactly to find
whether a method passes or fails a rule. Maybe some are shorthand
for imprecise ideas that Mike use while ostensibly, but not
actually, following the wording. But Marcus seems to have merged
differing rules and somehow integrated them to be able to come to
a conclusion that he can actually test methods with Mike's ideas.
I just reject Marcus Schulze's position. It is quite unsafe in that
it makes it easy for errors to survive.
-------------
Does anybody here want to tell Mike Ossipoff that it is not their hope
to be provided with trashily extruded definitions. I question them but
like others, what Mike returns seems to be exercises in irrelevancy.
There is an aspect of secretly shuffling around definitions, e.g. the
SARC definitions, then a comment that the comments are about "SARC",
i.e. just one of them.
A problem is that Mike Ossipoff does not refer to definitions. Lets
have a public vote. There could be at least 30 silent subscribers.
All those that want ot have Mike Ossipoff tell us all about SARC and
FBC and WDSC, provided that the explanations have no strict relevance
to the online definitions, write in, and state that. The list seems
to be flooded with garbage and Mike is therefore in an uncertain
position if he thinks there is a desire to have that added to with
his best thoughts of the moment, provided theyare not rigorously
subservient to Mike's own definitions. Maybe Mike regards his own
SARC (etc.) definitions as so relentlessly trashy, that for him to
appear to showing admirable rigour by using inference precisely when
commenting on his own rules, would be pointless.
Mike has a disregard for his rules: he ignores them (and instead
writes of his thoughts on rules of the same name. Why is Marcus
Schulze arguing against Mr Ossipoff's rules when Mr Ossipoff seems
to view them as a cover for directing text at readers of the list?.
When is Mr Ossipoff going to stop.
Is there anybody that needs to have more understanding from Mike
Ossipoff on the value of his rules?, whilst it is as unclear as it
is why Mike Ossipoff has multiple definitions for single rules.
Does Mike want to tell us that the online rules are rough and open
to interpretation?. How could they be other than exactly and precise
given that they need to return a Boolean free of uncertainty, and
given that methods are lacking in imprecision?.
Why did Mike Ossipoff decide to write his rules in English given
that he tends to make such a variety of mistakes when he does that.
The reason is that is that maths will represent precise rules very
well and the rules of Mike Ossipoff are not precise.
What I hope for, is for Mike Ossipoff to stop making thoughts in
response to questions on rules, say questions about SARC.
The English wording of the online rules is hard to follow. That is
not necessary. However the basic theme of certifying preferential
voting methods, rather than passing or failing them, is a tremendous
leap backwards. (Many of the rules use data from voters).
Has any subscriber heard Mike justify why methods can't be tested
until elections are held. However the real problem is that the rules
are billowing hoaxes and Mike and Russes rules actually do not
either test, or certify, any method. A close analysis of the rules
is required, since FBC can reject a rule if one voter wants to fail
a rule. I might do that whenever FBC was testing the Approval Vote.
One methods rejects the Approval Vote and the rest are undefined.
-----
>WDSC & SDSC protect the majority who prefer A to B, as regards what
>it takes to defeat B. SFC & GSFC have a similar limitation, but
WDSC and SDSC presumably do not protect the majority. That is a
rather unclear statement. I don't want to get it fixed. It may be
better to add it to the collection of seemingly false statements made
already.
As I noted, one of the rules had embedded in it, an (undefined) voting
method. They don't do that in industry. E.g. vehicle exhaust analysing
equipment manufacturers do not put entire cars into their testing
equipment. Still, Mike didn't seem interested. I see the crashed
Concorde I wrote of is flying again. These rules of Mike Ossipoff's
are something out of comic books. I would be cautious because Marcus
Schulze has alleged to the list that he understood Mike Ossipoff's
rules to such an extent he could comment on them having [little] power.
---
Mr David Catchpole has written to this list about formalism. Lets
apply that idea here. I want this formalism: if Mike writes a useless
definition with meaning X, then the definition is exactly that. There
is no place for diverting the biggest river in China into the list if
the material in it is nothing but Mike's thoughts.
The list owner could require statements to be true. But the owner was
opposed to that. Apparently this is a list where persons have to
understand the other people's points of view. The fact before me is
that Mike has botched useless online definitions requiring the
reader to be god or something, and that can't test methods, and Rob's
rules would point a direction for the list as being the deep
understanding of that. I wouldn't mind knowing how Marcus Schulze can
understand the Russ Paielli rules sufficiently to find that they are
weak. He has rewritten them somehow. Since Marcus doesn't write
formula to the list, it may be better to not ask that he suggest how
the online cirteria testing methods be repaired.
There could be a we know by gut-feel community within the mailing list.
What happened to Mr Blake Cretney and Mr Bart Ingliss?. Has anybody
got data on the half life of mathematicians staying at this mailing
list.
I presume this is a major practical achievement of Mike Ossipoff's
writing about his thoughts: the divesting of the list of any
mathematically competent subscribers that chance to join. I am quite
satisfied that that is upheld by Rob Lanphier. Now is as good a time
as any for great mathematicians to leave. There could be an ulterior
motive and "falsification of motive" in staying subscribed, even
though it may be the sincere preference to stay. One problem with
Mike's rules is that they do not seem desirable. It depends whether
a method tester agrees a rule ought bestow upon the certifier of a
method, an entire fleet of "false motive and likes" detecting spirits.
Might has sort of avoided the topic, but it certainly seems to be
in the rules. Referring to the previous message, when the Approval
Vote was making a candidate with 99% of the vote, lose a 1 winner
election, I suggest that Mike doesn't actually ever collect data on
voter sincerity, but just fabricates the data. I.e. he possibly
prefers to falsify data (e.g. on whether voters falsified their
votes), rather than use omniscience or spirits or bad collecting
methods, to collect the data. Refer to the of Mikes just below,
where voters have an influence in some of his rules if they can
escape having Mike detect that they falsifed their preferences.
I am going to quit this mailing list soon probably.
----
>also stipulate that there's no falsification of preferences, no voting
>of unfelt preferences. Additionallly, SFC only applies when there's
>a sincere CW.
What does stipulate mean?. Does it entail a collecting of data from
voters?. The idea is absent from the online definitions page.
The idea of "falsification" is totally undefined at the webpage. It
maybe impossible to say that the voter was completely false, Any
voter could have unclear intents and those intents could be marred
with probabilities. E.g. I will vote for 'red' but I want 'gree' to
win if they would keep their promises.
What happens now Mike, say in the next 3 weeks?. I have alleged that
you covertly switch definitions. It is a major problem. I guess it
looks like you get thoroughly taken in and misled by the method, but
perhaps not so many others do. Suppose a husband kept having to
switch fake glass jewelry given to the wife as a present with the real
jewels, since the wife somehow had a private jeweller as a friend and
the jeweller couldn't be allowed to see the glass jewells and the wife
wouldn't recognize the real jewels. What I mean is, who cares what
the motive is for you willfully ignoring your online definitions
that Mr Russ Paielli may have uploaded for you using an FTP program.
There is the aspect of ignoring your own definitions for a possible
purpose of replacing the use of reasoning with an expressing of
remembered previously thought out ideas. It is instantly rejected
by many subscribers once it hits the list's membership. Like you,
there are things I do not understand. One thing I do understand which
Mike does not, is that he or Russ inadvertently uses a "Not" in the
wrong place in a rule, the rule is totally ruined. Mike seems to
personally believe that little errors in the definitions make no
difference.
Perhaps you could make a list of all the FBC definitions you have
Mike. The single FBC definition that is online at Russ Paielli's
website apparently seems to reject the Approval Vote. It has the word
"likes" in it too. Since earlier this year, it seems you still have
not precisely described the meaning of the word likes, in the context
of FBC. Maybe Mr Schulze can explain this matter to us.
I ask and tell Mike Ossipoff to stop making assertions about his
rules, without providing proofs. The assertions appear to be done in
a spirit of abject indifference to his own rules. You are presenting
a lot of relatively complex ideas, and this is one I did not follow.
Obviously, it does very nicely allow for a rejection of the use of
reasoning and inference, and methods allowing a true conclusion to
be arrived at.
Is putting truth into your sentences an aim?. I don't want to suggest
lying when there is simulated partial earnestness, extremely bad
definitions postulating the reader is partially omniscient, the rules
are hoaxes, and their designer is being bogged down in the specifics
of evading the unchanging points made and concerned to educate the
list's subscribers. How are these subscribers altering under the
intellectual play?. They seem to be quiet. That is private.
I wrote to list owner Rob Lanphier and appealed weakly for a more
ideal list, but Rob might be resolved to let forces play out. If you
are a mathematician, why don't you quit?. I wrote this (a sample to
hint that I am out of touch with the character and purposes of the
old Election Methods mailing list:
>But if there is a new black magic [Rob], of which untruth is
>just the immaterial surface, then I want to know what it is.
>Mike himself might have to
... [Every list can get better]
I invite Mike to tell us how he can infer from his online definition
of monotonicity, whether or not it has pairwise summing, or whether
the rule says nothing if the tiniest contrariness of direction in
the shifting of a given candidate's support. This is not a question
about beliefs and so forth. This is what the wording currently is:
"Mono: Monotocity Criterion
Voting a candidate higher should never cause him to lose
if he would have won otherwise. Voting a candidate lower
should never cause him to win if he would have lost
otherwise."
The words higher and lower are undefined on the webpage. It doesn't
take a genius to realize that the rule is totally undefined.
This is what Mr Ossipoff and I disagree on. I'd say a rule tends to
resemble something like this:
Define Rule(method 'Wins') =
(For All candidates c)(For All Votes U, V) [
Is_Allowed_Alteration(U,V, c) implies
((c in Wins(U)) implies (C in Wins(V))) ]
A bit of low level consideration of preference lists may be needed.
Mr Ossipoff may believe that a rule is something where voters'
"likes" (FBC) get taken account of. So the left hand side would be more
like this:
Define the 2 parameter rule
Rule_Ossipoff_No1(method 'Wins', voters' "likes" as known by God) = ...
There is much for students to investigate here.
>You'd like to compare the effectiveness of completely different
>criteria in reducing insincerity need, numerically. For instance,
>someone could ask counts as more: Approval's FBC & SARC compliance,
>or Tideman(wv)'s SDSC, SFC, & GSFC compliance. I wouldn't know how to
>assign numbers to try to answer that numerically. It's my personal
I don't compare effectiveness. I have an admission that you were
writing about ideas as if they were quantities and now you say that
you have no idea what the quantities were. How does that integrate
into a bigger picture?. However, you have the option of starting
again, and you may have trouble avoiding that if successfully
constructing a mathematical formula to represent allowed alterations
of the winners for a separately defined function defining permitted
alterations of the papers. I.e. a formula with seemingly parameters:
Papers_Prefer(Ballots U, Winners(U), Ballots V, Winners(V))
That FBC rule, has likes, but it is unclear about whether it is in
the before (U) state or the after (V) state. You used the word "likes"
which suggests you know enough about likes in multiwinner elections to
be able to have an idea corresponding to altering the above expression
into this:
Likes(Ballots U, Winners(U)) > Likes(Ballots V, Winners(V))
But is this better:
Likes(Ballots U, Winners(U)) > Likes(Ballots U, Winners(V))
FBC is not a definition that you ever carefully thought about. It is
badly written and has ambiguity that probably impossible to put into
to it if you had ever thought of it with the very precision that testing
would have demanded. But worse, it is something like this:
Likes(Ballots U, Winners(U), Voter people attributes of elections U &? V)
> Likes(Ballots U, Winners(V), Voter attributes of election V &? U)
Can FBC fail the Approval Vote if a single voter out of a million will
do that?. You still regard the Approval Vote as being other than an
unmitigated evil?. As in a very bad method that ought not be used. So,
it fails FBC. Of co
Where is your proof that the Approval Vote is passed by FBC. Which FBC
definition? : one implied by your explanations?, or the online definition
that seems or a bit of creating repairing, to fail FBC, ?.
It is certainly easy for readers to believe if you think that rule
r passes method m, then the truth could be that, if the definition were
fixed, rule r actually fails method m.
>impression that SFC & GSFC are very powerful because complying methods
>can be completely strategy free for some voters under some plausible
>conditions. But that's only an impression, and I don't have a
>quantitative approach to comparing effectiveness of completely
>different criteria.
I still do not understand why Mike Ossipoff has created such needlessly
bad definitions as he has, and then talks irrelevantly about his thoughts
and neglects his definitions as if they are useless irrelevancies.
Great mathematicians do not do that, ignore what they write when stating
the principles of what is good. Perhaps Mike Ossipoff's theory of good
is bad in that he feels he has to disregard the principles.
Mike has in the past edged into writing against mathematics. But all
these issues result from Mike Ossipoff making bad use of the precision
that English can provide. The ideas vague and tainted with a stipulation
that the certifier of a method be omniscient in elections of that method
and be really very vague on exact time the sincerity and likes data is
actually collected and used.
But, so far, Mike has not found any problem with that. That seems to be
because his formal definitions vaguely imply use of spirits, Mike
deftly uses a power of personal assertion and seems to not actually
apply the rules.
Mr Schulze was able to apply some rules of Mike Ossipoff. We ought be
provided with examples. However, Mr Schulze had to ignore the written
definitions and try to reconstruct Mr Ossipoff's ideas from his
comments. While that sounds like it could be an awesome achievement,
we never found out what exactly Mr Schulze arrived at after repairing
the ideas of Mike Ossipoff, and after carefully ignoring the actual
wording on Mike Ossipoff's online definitions.
Perhaps Mike Ossipoff can tell me why the definitions at the Russ
Paielli website (formerly in the domain of NASA), are unable to be
interpreted by readers of this mailing list, and why Mike himself
prefers to neglect, apparently to such an extent that he is so
unfamiliar with the formal versions that he can't comment on their
wording. I read his comment that I complained about the word "is".
I don't recall that. Why have you the idea of voters in your rules?.
Can you send in a revision history of each rule?, please. I am keeping
copies of the Russ Paielli website. I guess I may be later be able to
prove that it can take you over 3, 6?, years to make changes improving
precision, that honest people can make in an hour or so. I am
interested to know why you write down very bad vague botched & useless
definitions implying [godhood] or certification or spirits that front
up to voters at the voting booths, when none of those 3 exist, then
ignore the rules, declare emptily that you don't read messages having
very many words, and then write to readers as if putting your arm into
a trash can and throwing rubbish at them, with some seeming display at
good social conduct.
Mike, you replies are not reasonable since they are not about what is
being criticised. What Russ Paielli was aiming for I do not know.
____________________________________________________________________
Starring, as Bathycles Crap, the renowned actor
Mr.
>Mike Ossipoff
in another Quota Zero Inc. production,
"The Star Cluster Wars: the Tripomutes versus Voters"
((Copyright 2000. Adaptation of the ideas contained herein, or any
((attempt to fix them, will be harshly prosecuted to the fullest extent
((that the law permits. No exception for intellectually handicapped folk.
((15-September-2000
I'm off and quitting. Bye to you all.
I didn't manage to adapt to the subjectivity of the EM List.
G. A. Craig Carey
http://www.ijs.co.nz/ifpp.htm (Politicians and Polytopes list)
