Re: Idempotence and "Replication Insensitivity" are equivalent ?

From: Marshall <>
Date: 24 Sep 2006 21:54:11 -0700
Message-ID: <>

vc wrote:
> Chris Smith wrote:
> > vc <> wrote:
> > > In the case when any point in [0..1] can be a median, both the
> > > absolute deviation minimizing property and the more traditional
> > > definition would yield the same result which means that the OP (Pamela)
> > > was right and her opponent wrong:
> >
> > I'll just point out that something's gone seriously wrong when
> > participants in a supposedly rational discussion start talking about
> > "opponent"s.
> > So we've got a discussion going where neither party seems
> > eager to establish any kind of willingness to hold an earnest
> > converation.
> What specific comments of substance I've made with respect to the {0,
> 1} median example /definition do you disagree with ? Are also of the
> opinion that the OP was wrong ? If so, could you show where exactly
> she was wrong when she mentioned the median minimizing property ?


You are full of non-sequiturs in this thread. Chris made a meta point about the discussion; if you want to respond to his point, you have to do it at the metadiscussion level, not at the level of the discussion itself. Furthermore, you seem to have completely misinterpreted Phil's point, which as I understand it was that the minimizing property does not indentify a unique value, but in some cases a range of values. Your complaint about Phil's point seems to be that the minimizing property does not identify a unique value. Since that was Phil's point in the first place, it is altogether unpersuasive in refuting him.

I remain respectful of your mathematical abilities, however you do seem to be a bit of a rush to find fault from time to time.

Marshall Received on Mon Sep 25 2006 - 06:54:11 CEST

Original text of this message