Dear Mike, I proposed that heuristic for the Schulze method that uses Schwartz sets in 1998:
http://lists.electorama.com/pipermail/election-methods-electorama.com/1998-August/001958.html http://lists.electorama.com/pipermail/election-methods-electorama.com/1998-November/002771.html In Feb 2000, we discussed which Condorcet method should be proposed to the Debian project. See e.g. here: http://lists.electorama.com/pipermail/election-methods-electorama.com/2000-February/003555.html http://lists.electorama.com/pipermail/election-methods-electorama.com/2000-February/003558.html http://lists.electorama.com/pipermail/election-methods-electorama.com/2000-February/003559.html http://lists.electorama.com/pipermail/election-methods-electorama.com/2000-February/003560.html In your 15 Feb 2000 mail, you discussed 3 methods: "Drop Contradicted Defeats" (DCD), "Sequential Dropping" (SD), and Schulze: http://lists.electorama.com/pipermail/election-methods-electorama.com/2000-February/003576.html Then in your 18 Feb 2000 mail, the term "Schwartz Sequential Dropping" (SSD) was used for the very first time. In that mail, you did not only admit that you knew my method, you also admitted that you were aware that SSD _is_ my method: http://lists.electorama.com/pipermail/election-methods-electorama.com/2000-February/003577.html Therefore, it is clear (1) that you knew my method when you "devised" SSD and (2) that it was clear to you from the very beginning that SSD _is_ my method. ************ You wrote (17 May 2005): > Where did SSD come from? In individual e-mail, Steve Eppley suggested a > method that successively drops the weakest defeat among the smallest set > of candidates that is unbeaten from without. SSD is an Eppley-Ossipoff > method. Please forward this communication between Steve Eppley and you. I would like to know why (although you considered neither independence of clones nor reversal symmetry important and although Steve Eppley decided to promote Tideman's ranked pairs method) you decided to promote SSD. ************ I wrote (15 May 2005): > The term "beatpath winner" has been introduced by you in 2000 as a > synonym for the Schulze method. You wrote: > > > I refer to the method that's been known as "Schulze's method", > > and which I'll sometimes call "Beatpath Winner". > > http://lists.electorama.com/pipermail/election-methods-electorama.com/2000-May/003955.html > > Therefore, your claim that "'Schulze's method' doesn't mean > BeatpathWinner" is false by your own definition. You wrote (17 May 2005): > We've recently been all over that. I won't repeat that argument, but, to > summarize the conclusion that we reached recently, I admitted that I was > mistaken when I thought that "Schulze's method" means the method that I > call "BeatpathWinner". "Schulze's method" does not mean BeatpathWinner. Your "reply" doesn't make any sense. In 2000, you _defined_ the term "beatpath winner" as a synonym for the Schulze method. The term "beatpath winner" hadn't been used before. Therefore, it doesn't make any sense when you now claim that you only mistakenly believed that "beatpath winner" was a synonym for the Schulze method. The terms "beatpath winner" and "Schulze method" are synonymous terms because you _defined_ them to be synonymous terms. Markus Schulze ---- Election-methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
