Dear Mike,
the intention of your recent mails isn't clear to me. I want you
to remember that it is Steve who started claiming that you had
an example "showing the Schulze method preferred a candidate
even though no voter preferred it to the Tideman winner which
beat it pairwise." Therefore you should attack Steve and not me.
Even on 11 May 2000, Steve claimed that you have an example
"showing the Schulze method preferred a candidate even though no
voter preferred it to the Tideman winner which beat it pairwise."
Therefore when you pretend that Steve quoted you correctly and
that I quoted you incorrectly, then you have to explain why that
claim that you claim that you have such an example was still true
on 11 May 2000 and was false on 13 May 2000.
******
You wrote (20 June 2000):
> Markus wrote (19 June 2000):
> > Mike wrote (13 May 2000):
> > > I don't remember any details about the "Tideman fails GMC"
> > > example. I posted one, but I don't remember what the
> > > defeat magnitudes were, or have a copy of it.
> > >
> > > But if some voters were indifferent between the 2 methods' winners,
> > > then method M1's winner could beat method M2's winner, with no
> > > one preferring M2's winner to M1's winner, without there having
> > > to be a violation of Pareto. A few people rank M1's winner over
> > > M2's winner, and the rest don't express a preference between the
> > > two.
> >
> > As far as I interpret you correctly, M1 = Tideman and M2 = Schulze.
>
> You don't interpret me correctly very far. You interpret me
> incorrectly. I said M1 & M2 because I intended there to not
> name particular methods. That's a good example of you making
> up an interpretation that doesn't resemble what the person said,
> to justify a false quote. I was talking about what it takes to
> violate Pareto.
But why did you write that paragraph when you now pretend that this
paragraph had absolutely nothing to do with the discussion whether it
is possible to create an example "showing the Schulze method preferred
a candidate even though no voter preferred it to the Tideman winner
which beat it pairwise"?
******
You wrote (20 June 2000):
> Markus wrote (19 June 2000):
> > Even in your 19 May 2000 mail, you wrote that you don't know
> > whether it is possible or impossible to create an example "showing
> > the Schulze method preferred a candidate even though no voter
> > preferred it to the Tideman winner which beat it pairwise."
>
> Here you're being asinine in 2 ways:
>
> 1. Even if I'd said that it's possible to create such an example
> , that wouldn't mean that I'd said that my Tideman bad-example,
> itself, with its vote totals as written, is possible with some
> set of rankings.
>
> 2. Since when is saying "I don't know" if such an example is
> possible the same as stating that such an example is possible.
>
> So, I said that I don't know if such an example is possible, and
> you interpret that as meaning that not only is such an example
> possible, but also, in particular, my Tideman bad-example is
> possible.
You are misquoting me. "Or whould we use the impolite word?"
I wrote that you wrote in your 19 May 2000 mail that you don't
know whether it is possible or impossible to create an example
"showing the Schulze method preferred a candidate even though no
voter preferred it to the Tideman winner which beat it pairwise."
I didn't write that you said in your 19 May 2000 mail that your
"Tideman bad-example, itself, with its vote totals as written, is
possible with some set of rankings."
You wrote (20 June 2000):
> Markus wrote (19 June 2000):
> > Mike wrote (19 May 2000):
> > > Is that situation impossible because it isn't possible to supply
> > > a set of rankings for it? Of course, aside from that, of itself,
> > > it the fact that no one ranks A over B doesn't meant that A can't
> > > have a strong beatpath to B. And the fact that someone ranks B over
> > > A doesn't mean that B has a strong beatpath to A. But maybe it's
> > > that that situation can't be created by a set of rankings. I don't
> > > know.
>
> Must I read it to you, Markus? I said "I don't know".
I never claimed that you wrote something different in your 19 May 2000
mail.
Again: I wrote that in your 19 May 2000 mail you wrote that you don't
know whether it is possible or impossible to create an example "showing
the Schulze method preferred a candidate even though no voter preferred
it to the Tideman winner which beat it pairwise."
******
You wrote (20 June 2000):
> Markus wrote (19 June 2000):
> > Actually, you (= Mike) wrote in your 13 May 2000 mail
> > (http://www.egroups.com/message/election-methods-list/5388):
> > > Steve didn't say that Beatpath Winner chose a Pareto inferior
> > > candidate or violated Pareto. He merely said that it chose
> > > a candidate whom no voter preferred to the Tideman winner, and
> > > which was pairwise-beaten by the Tideman winner.
> > >
> > > That doesn't require a Pareto violation. For instance, say
> > > that a few voters rank the Tideman winner over Beatpath Winner's
> > > winner, and that the rest of the voters are indifferent between
> > > those two. The situation that Steve described exists, without
> > > a violation of Pareto.
> >
> > In short: You wrote that Steve wrote that the Schulze method
> > "chose a candidate whom no voter preferred to the Tideman winner,
> > and which was pairwise-beaten by the Tideman winner." And you
> > wrote that "the situation that Steve described exists." I never
> > claimed that you wrote something different in your 13 May 2000
> > mail. Therefore I see absolutely no justification for your claim
> > that I misquoted you.
>
> You still don't get it, Markus; you're still missing it. In
> my previous letter, about an hour ago, I carefully explained
> to you that I _did not_ make that statement. The sentence that
> says that follows a conditional qualifier:
>
> "For instance, say that a few voters rank the Tideman winner over
> BeatpathWinner's winner, and that the rest of the voters are
> indifferent between those two. The situation that Steve described
> exists, without a violation of Pareto."
>
> You insist on using that last sentence by itself, as if it
> were, by itself, a statement or a declaration. Wrong. It follows
> a conditional qualifier. So I was saying that _if_ that
> condition were so, then the situation that Steve described exists.
> That isn't a matter of interpretation. It's obvious.
>
> I didn't say that the qualifying condition can be true--in
> fact I said several times that day that I didn't know if it could.
> I certainly didn't say that my Tideman bad-example is possible.
> I just finished explaining that to you an hour ago, but it
> apparently didn't sink in. Are you out to lunch?
You wrote that Steve wrote that the Schulze method "chose a
candidate whom no voter preferred to the Tideman winner, and which
was pairwise-beaten by the Tideman winner." And you wrote that "the
situation that Steve described exists." The statements in your
13 May 2000 mail are clear. Every other participant of this
mailing list would interpret your 13 May 2000 mail in the same
manner.
Markus Schulze
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
