Warren, thank you for realizing that I am _not_ trying to prove that P=NP.
On 12/21/2011 2:24 PM, Warren Smith wrote:
> I have earlier cited published proofs this problem is NP-complete.
Please point to either the proofs or a message that links to the proofs.
I want to read what they really say.
Other such "proofs" I have looked at did not apply to the
characteristics of Condorcet-Kemeny calculations.
If the proofs do apply, I want to make sure the proofs are not flawed.
If that sounds pretentious, consider that the common explanation of
airfoil lift -- being due to air traveling across the top of a wing
faster than across the bottom -- is mistaken, yet it is published in
countless books.
On 12/22/2011 11:40 AM, Warren Smith wrote:
... And as I said Fobes does seem to me to have talent
as a writer, so it is sad to see him wasting it by perpetually spewing
his utter garbage and posing as an expert.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crank_(person)
...
>
Basically, I now have the view that I automatically disbelieve
everything Fobes ever says, until I get further evidence.
Such "oversimplified associative thinking" is the opposite of scientific
reasoning.
Let's skip the judgments and discuss the facts. If the proofs you cite
really prove what you claim, then I will amend my claims.
Richard Fobes
----
Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
