Re: NEDA is going down a primrose path...

From: Kathy Dopp <kathy_dot_dopp_at_gmail_dot_com>
Date: Sat Aug 05 2006 - 04:50:41 CDT

Sorry. I missed noticing this post by Jerry earlier. I'll simply
correct a few facts and leave it at that for now.

On 8/3/06, ovc-discuss-request@listman.sonic.net
<ovc-discuss-request@listman.sonic.net> wrote:
> Message: 2
> Date: Wed, 02 Aug 2006 15:39:19 -0500
> From: Jerry Lobdill <lobdillj@charter.net>
> Subject: [OVC-discuss] NEDA is going down a primrose path...
> To:
>
> Since Ms. Dopp posted the message below I worked with her briefly in
> support of the effort she had going (alluded to below) to solve the
> probability equation in closed form. The effort to find a closed

Jerry did not solve the probability equation. Frank Stenger solved
it. Although Jerry did lead us temporarily down a blind alley, which
was not a big deal as that happens frequently in math when one is
looking for solutions.

> form solution failed, but I wrote a new spreadsheet that expresses

Jerry did not discover the numerical solution to the election
integrity equation I derived until the day "after" he received Frank's
numerical solution via email and he exactly copied it. While Frank
and I were further refining Frank's elegant numerical program to fully
implement the equation I had discovered (Frank Stenger is world famous
in numerical methods) Jerry managed to exactly copy Frank's first
version that he had received via an email from me, in a spreadsheet
without implementing my election integrity equation in it, just the
rough basic equation that Frank had solved the day earlier.

Frank instantly noticed that Jerry was claiming credit for Frank's
method. Frank is one of the foremost mathematicians in the world and
I knew that the equation was difficult to solve and that the Brennan
Center had given up on trying to solve it by any method and that the
one person in the world who could solve it was my friend Frank
Stenger. I'm afraid Jerry really does not deserve to receive the
credit for Frank's solution.

> the probability in terms of gamma functions. This formulation
> eliminates the need to use integers for sample sizes when goal
> seeking to find the sample size that provides a 0.95 probability of
> finding at least one corrupt precinct in the sample.

Not quite, but almost. Frank's solution uses a continuous function,
but the real life solution requires integers which don't land on the
exact probabilities we input into the numerical algorithm as much as
the solutions Frank's method finds which can be made accurate to
within 10 digits or something much more accurate than anything we need
for our real life problem.

>
> Unfortunately, I was unable to work successfully with her to produce
> a product based on this work because we could not resolve our

Again, it was not Jerry's work, but Frank's. Let's be honest here.

> differences on two other issues. The first issue was whether her
> solution assumes that all precincts in the county have equal numbers
> of votes. The second issue was the method of deciding what precincts
> should be included or excluded from the population when setting up
> the equation.

My solution does not assume that all precincts in a county have equal
number of votes obviously, that would be unimaginable.

I don't plan to exclude any precincts from the total count when
setting up "the" equation, but I'm not sure what equation of the
several involved Jerry is referring to, or why anyone would imagine
excluding precincts or even selecting certain precincts when setting
up any of the equations involved. i.e. Jerry's comments seem
unrelated to my work.

>
> I am now working on my own to produce a methodology for conducting
> mandatory audits of elections. I will post my writeups on this
> problem here and hope that there will be some members who will be
> able to take the time to read and discuss this work.

Good. Never hurts to have someone thinking more about this issue. I
hope, however, that Jerry does not continue to claim credit for
Frank's work or my own when he releases his own ideas, or perhaps
since he feels my methods, as he understands them, are invalid, I hope
that Jerry will present a new method that he himself derived, rather
than claiming credit for a solution that a world famous numerical
analyst friend of mine derived, and provably prior to when Jerry,
after receiving his solution, claimed to derive it himself.

Kathy Dopp
_______________________________________________
OVC-discuss mailing list
OVC-discuss@listman.sonic.net
http://lists.sonic.net/mailman/listinfo/ovc-discuss
==================================================================
= The content of this message, with the exception of any external
= quotations under fair use, are released to the Public Domain
==================================================================
Received on Thu Aug 31 23:17:04 2006

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Thu Aug 31 2006 - 23:17:10 CDT