Re: OVC-discuss Digest, Vol 22, Issue 4

From: Jerry Lobdill <lobdillj_at_charter_dot_net>
Date: Sun Aug 06 2006 - 09:21:18 CDT

I have agreed to delay any further discussion of this issue on the
list until Arthur Keller has submitted my work to Stanford.


At 02:00 PM 8/5/2006, you wrote:
>Message: 4
>Date: Sat, 5 Aug 2006 03:50:41 -0600
>From: "Kathy Dopp" <>
>Subject: Re: [OVC-discuss] NEDA is going down a primrose path...
> <>
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
>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,
><> wrote:
> > Message: 2
> > Date: Wed, 02 Aug 2006 15:39:19 -0500
> > From: Jerry Lobdill <>
> > 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

(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is
distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior
interest in receiving the included information for research and
educational purposes. ProgressiveNews2Use has no affiliation
whatsoever with the originator of this article nor is
ProgressiveNews2Use endorsed or sponsored by the originator.)

"Go to Original" links are provided as a convenience to our readers
and allow for verification of authenticity. However, as originating
pages are often updated by their originating host sites, the versions
posted on ProgressiveNews2Use may not match the versions our readers
view when clicking the "Go to Original" links.

OVC-discuss mailing list

= 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