It's necessary to send this reply in parts, because of a comuter problem. Warren says:
Mike Ossipoff in the thus-named post failed to provide any definition or any theorem as usual I reply: Members: Note Warren's flame-war-style angry tone. The same tone with which he began his correspondence with me on this subject. Shall we take a vote on what to do about him? If it isn't a simple up/down vote, and has more than 2 alternatives, then I recommend BeatpathWinner. But we could use the already-established Approval method to choose a voting system. But, to answer his statement, actually I did provide a definition. Two definitions of bias: The universally-accepted one, and a modification of it that was intended to get rid of ambiguity. Of course I've provided definitions of all four of my methods. Theorem? I told why, by that popular definition of bias, my methods are unbiased.. (Cycle Webster and Adjusted-Rounding are unconditionally unbiased. Bias-Free is unbiased with a uniform frequency distribution. Weighted Bias-Free is unbiased to the extent that its approximation of the distribution is accurate). It isn't entirely clear what theorems Warren wants me to refer to or provide. Warren continues: , while also failing to answer my question Warren says: Mike Ossipoff in the thus-named post failed to provide any definition or any theorem as usual I reply: Members: Note Warren's flame-war-style angry tone. The same tone with which he began his correspondence with me on this subject. Shall we take a vote on what to do about him? If it isn't a simple up/down vote, and has more than 2 alternatives, then I recommend BeatpathWinner. But we could use the already-established Approval method to choose a voting system. But, to answer his statement, actually I did provide a definition. Two definitions of bias: The universally-accepted one, and a modification of it that was intended to get rid of ambiguity. Of course I've provided definitions of all four of my methods. Theorem? I told why, by that popular definition of bias, my methods are unbiased.. (Cycle Webster and Adjusted-Rounding are unconditionally unbiased. Bias-Free is unbiased with a uniform frequency distribution. Weighted Bias-Free is unbiased to the extent that its approximation of the distribution is accurate). It isn't entirely clear what theorems Warren wants me to refer to or provide. Warren continues: , while also failing to answer my question Warren says: Mike Ossipoff in the thus-named post failed to provide any definition or any theorem as usual I reply: Members: Note Warren's flame-war-style angry tone. The same tone with which he began his correspondence with me on this subject. Shall we take a vote on what to do about him? If it isn't a simple up/down vote, and has more than 2 alternatives, then I recommend BeatpathWinner. But we could use the already-established Approval method to choose a voting system. But, to answer his statement, actually I did provide a definition. Two definitions of bias: The universally-accepted one, and a modification of it that was intended to get rid of ambiguity. Of course I've provided definitions of all four of my methods. Theorem? I told why, by that popular definition of bias, my methods are unbiased.. (Cycle Webster and Adjusted-Rounding are unconditionally unbiased. Bias-Free is unbiased with a uniform frequency distribution. Weighted Bias-Free is unbiased to the extent that its approximation of the distribution is accurate). It isn't entirely clear what theorems Warren wants me to refer to or provide. to be continued Mike Ossipoff
WarrenSmith.wps
Description: Binary data
---- election-methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
