I know enough about data compression to know what logic and math is behind it.
It is evident YOU don't know anything about logic. Exract a ranked ballot from '011', please. Tell me how you did it. -----Original Message----- From: Warren Smith [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Saturday, June 06, 2009 4:37 PM To: Paul Kislanko Subject: Re: [EM] Some myths about voting methods wrong again. In fact, every one of your 4 paragraphs is wrong. Perhaps it'd help if you read a book about data compression. There's one by Witten. Don't write me again on this. On 6/6/09, Paul Kislanko <[email protected]> wrote: > Evidently logic and math IS hard for you. > > Your example of how to encode the 6-choice ballot in the same number of bits > ignores the fact that in order to do so you need a table. Youo can NOT > reproduce a ranked ballot from a 3-bit number WITHOUT adding to the > information the 3x2 bit table to EVERY ballot. > > Don't call someone an idiot if you can't figure out that 24>3. > > You claimed a ranked ballot for three candidates can be reconstructed from a > 3-bit number. Then you added 6x3 = 18 bits "on the side" to show it was > possible. I say all you did was show that you could reconstuct it using 21 > bits, which is even worse than the 6 bits I suggested. > > Don't call someone an IDIOT if *YOU* do not know what you're talking about. > > -----Original Message----- > From: Warren Smith [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: Saturday, June 06, 2009 3:00 PM > To: Paul Kislanko > Subject: Re: [EM] Some myths about voting methods > > Dear Idiot. > > I did not claim 3>6, I claimed your calculation of 6 was wrong. > In fact, I gave a calculation showing what you called 6, was actually below > 3. > > Then, you wrongly thought my calculation of the number 8/3 was, in fact, > the number 8. > > This is not hard. Unless you have a very big blind spot. Oh, that's you. > > > > On 6/6/09, Paul Kislanko <[email protected]> wrote: >> See what you said? You only need 8 bits to record a ranked ballot? >> >> You only need 3 to encode an approval ballot for three candidates. Now >> you're claiming 8<= 3? >> >> Arithmetic? anyone? >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Warren Smith [mailto:[email protected]] >> Sent: Saturday, June 06, 2009 2:26 PM >> To: Paul Kislanko >> Subject: Re: [EM] Some myths about voting methods >> >> On 6/6/09, Paul Kislanko <[email protected]> wrote: >>> I'll try again. >>> >>> An approval ballot for 3 candidates can be encoded in 3 bits. 000 = no >>> approvals, 111 = approva all, 100 = approva A, 110 = approve A and B, > etc. >>> >>> A ranked ballot requires two bits per candidate. 01, 10, 11 for 1st, 2nd, >>> 3rd, for 6 bits, you can't do it in fewer. >> >> --yes you can. The rare 6 possible rank orders. Encode the 6 as >> 6 different binary 3-bit numbers. Further, we can encode three different >> rank-order ballots (6*6*6=216) in only 8 bits, saving more bits. >> >>> 6 > 3 means more information in the ranked ballot representations. >> >> --learn arithmetic. >> >> -- >> Warren D. Smith >> http://RangeVoting.org <-- add your endorsement (by clicking >> "endorse" as 1st step) >> and >> math.temple.edu/~wds/homepage/works.html >> >> >> > > > -- > Warren D. Smith > http://RangeVoting.org <-- add your endorsement (by clicking > "endorse" as 1st step) > and > math.temple.edu/~wds/homepage/works.html > > > -- Warren D. Smith http://RangeVoting.org <-- add your endorsement (by clicking "endorse" as 1st step) and math.temple.edu/~wds/homepage/works.html ---- Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
