Identity
Filter
Visitors
(1) (0) (0) (0) (1) (0) (0) (0) (0) (0) (0) (0) (0) (0) (0) (0) (0) (61) (0) (0) (0)Subscribers
(0) (0)
Highest posts
Latest posts
Links
Blogs
Democracy
Search
[top-politics] Re: PageRank is *Fractional Approval Asset Voting* with unlimited proxy depth.
-
Lomax wrote:
> Mark wrote: > >Lomax wrote: > > >Mark wrote: > >[…] >L:[…] Rather, it is about attempting to establish that ideas are right to an audience.
-M: ‘Audience’ – WTF is that? Measured by what c-algorithm, and under what time limit? The truth often takes time to grow on people,
and truth influences some more than others.>L: …A good debater can often convince an audience that something is right that is actually > wrong. Indeed, in debate contests, what do you think they do?
-M: This is why I demarcate rhetorical debate from analytical debate.
And SD2-S is about selecting those who would be more honest with their methods,
as well as those who can see past deceptive and convoluted methods.>L: Do the debaters get to pick which side they argue on an issue? Indeed, > sometimes, debaters who support one side of an issue may agree to > debate with someone who supports a different side. This can make > their jobs easier, sometimes. And sometimes it’s harder. It can be > harder when you are right, sometimes.
-M: Being right is usually easier analyticly, but is usually harder rhetoricly.
> > >L:…and it is judged by its effect on an audience.
> >-M: No, its judged by the truth of the points.
>L: Nonsense. That’s not debate. That is “logical argument in support of > the truth.”
-M: Which is debate. Do you debate otherwise? What if you don’t convince me?
>L: When Mark claimed that he had “whupped” another, he was > clearly placing this in the contest realm, where there are winners > and losers.
-M: Yes, the winner is the one with the burden of proliferating the truth.
Such a person is a hero who must be respected.>L: Among those who seek the truth, there is no losing when someone else exposes more clearly the truth.
-M: The loser is one who doesn’t respect the teacher. Otherwise, yes, there are no losers when truth is proliferated.
> >L: For Mark’s edification, from Wikipedia: > >Debate or debating is a formal method of interactive and position > >representational <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument>argument.
-M: OK.
> >L: Debate is a broader form of argument than > ><http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logical_argument>logical argument, > >since it includes > ><http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persuasion>persuasion which appeals to > >the emotional responses of an > ><http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Audience>audience, and rules enabling > >people to discuss and decide on differences, within a framework > >defining how they will interact.
-M: This is more complex than it seems.
> >L: Informal debate is a common occurrence, but the quality and depth of > >a debate improves with knowledge and skill of its participants as > >debaters. > ><http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deliberative_body>Deliberative bodies > >such as parliaments, legislative assemblies, and meetings of all > >sorts engage in debates. The outcome of a debate may be decided by > >audience vote, by judges, or by some combination of the two. Formal > >debates between candidates for elected office, such as the > ><http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leaders_debate>leaders debates and the > ><http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._presidential_election_debates>U.S. > > presidential election debates, are common in > ><http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy>democracies.
-M: In the above example there is a predefined c-algorithm by which to measure the audience approval.
Is there a predefined measure for ALL situations?
I don’t think so,
this is why debate being measured by audience approval is rather slippery.> > >L: Shall we vote?
> >-M: Sure. I vote that my points are all true. > >I welcome ANYONE to vote that ANY of my points are untrue.
>L: Not the issue. The issue is how well you debate them, and Mark has > asked the wrong question.
-M: BS, it is about the points.
>L: The question is, and I’m asking it and someone else can turn it into a formal poll if they care — I don’t — whether or not Mark has “won” his debate with anyone here? And I vote No.
-M: Cute. So where are my points wrong? Where has ANYONE beat me with a SINGLE point?
I have argument SUPREMACY, and I challenge you to show otherwise. You seem to want Mark to be wrong and his points to follow, even if they are right. Emotional bias?
Is this because I have whupped you?
How about showing some respect to your teacher?>L: This has nothing to do with whether or not certain arguments > presented by Mark are right or wrong. Even a stopped clock is right > twice a day, and Mark is “correct” more often than that. Mark, > indeed, has a rare understanding of delegable proxy, in certain ways, > and, for example, I think he may be correct when he claims that “Page > Rank” is FAAV. But the way that he presents his arguments, > practically nobody is convinced of anything he claims.
-M: How do you know? There are people here who understand Markov-algorithms, even if you are to entrenched to study them on your own.
>L: FAAV can have unlimited proxy depth. Depends on what the primary > proxies do with their votes (that is, those who received votes in the > secret ballot election, which votes may be divided by the voter). If > they assign them to a proxy, who may assign them to a proxy, etc., > there is unlimited depth unless a depth rule is added, which I would oppose. > Now, do I want DP to be “fractional” like FAAV? No. And I’m not going > to debate it here, I simply don’t have time.
-M: To recap, I support SD2-S as a form of FAAV because it gives the voters more choice.
Lomax seems to want to limit choice out of convenience or ease of calculation.
He prefers one proxy. By contrast, I want 2 or more general proxies, and one or more specialist proxies.>L: Mark’s arguments have, however, convinced me that I need to examine more closely what happens when a proxy is inactive. And the solution I see is simply that clients may reach up beyond their proxy to the proxy of their proxy, and that proxies may reach down through their clients to their client’s clients.
-M: With SD2-S, since there are multiple proxies, the other proxies fill in for the inactive proxy. If less than 2 active proxies are selected, then RD voting power is given to underdogs to help smooth the rank distribution curve. The voter still maintains DD powers.
>L: In FA/DP, this will happen naturally. I expect that > mailing lists or the like will be used by proxies for communication > with their clients, and I expect some of these lists to include a > couple of levels of client-proxy relationship. That is, a proxy may > start a list for his or her clients, and the list may allow direct > posting, generally, from more than one layer of clients. I see, in an > active organization, relatively few direct clients per proxy, and > mailing lists can handle much more traffic than what is involved in a > single proxy-client relationship.
-M: “…a proxy may start a list for his or her clients, and the list may allow…”
May, may, may.
If you don’t have a ‘turn-key’ system, then why should the user develop one?
This is why I am pushing for a SD2-S-Wiki.>L: So both client and proxy may belong to a list which includes a whole tree of clients, but which remains below the size where traffic becomes a problem. This whole tree feeds a high-level proxy. And the clients immediately below him or her will themselves be members of even higher-level lists. The central organization doesn’t need to deal with any of this. It is > what the proxies and clients will do themselves, all they need to do > is see examples, and they will imitate it. Or they will do something better.
-M: ‘…examples…’ – what I like to hear. :-)
shanti
Mark, Seattle WA USA—~—~————-~—~——~——————~———-~—~——~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups “top-politics” group. To post to this group, send email to top-politics@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to top-politics-unsubscribe@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/top-politics?hl=en -~—————~——~——~——~———~——~———~—~—-
+1
