Profound ignorance was displayed once more.
Another thing to notice in the commentary to the postulate is I referenced sims I had done on the bow effect, not sims on the floating advantage. This was the only time sims are mentioned in the proof or in the commentary of the proof except the earlier place in the passage reprinted above where it is remarked it is impossible to do enough sims to establish the bow effect under all circumstances which is the major reason I made the postulate and the proof a provisional one and the sims referenced provided no support for a floating advantage.
Despite this, one of the attacks Cant has repeatedly made on me is I used a Brh post archived on bjmath as the basis of my proof. He made this claim as late as yesterday. The thread follows:
------------------------------------
Re: You did say
Posted By: Clarke Cant
Date: Friday, 6 September 2002, at 2:02 p.m.
In Response To: You did say (ML)
I said that you did not give credit, not that you stole it--quote me correctly, you know how to drag text, or ....
See the section of your proof where you use sims on smaller versions of perfect mean subsets for true counts.
----------------------------------
Publishing something as your own
Posted By: ML
Date: Friday, 6 September 2002, at 2:47 p.m.
In Response To: Re: You did say (Clarke Cant)
And not properly attributing is stealing. That is the only way you can steal an idea. Please tell me another way one can steal an idea.
Nothing in my proof dealt with sims on the floating advantage. I did cite some sims as evidence my Postulate on the bow effect was acurate.
You cannot point out one thing in my proof which should have been attributed to the Brh post. I defy you to point out such an item. You cannot.
Point out one place in my proof where I used sims dealing with perfect mean subsets of true counts. Nowhere. I specifically started with an arbitrary, not a perfect set of cards. I defined it as an arbitrary set.
You told two lies in two paragraphs and you cannot back up either lie.
_________________________________
Did you somehow forget?--not likely
Posted By: Clarke Cant
Date: Friday, 6 September 2002, at 3:09 p.m.
In Response To: Publishing something as your own (ML)
the two versions of your statement in your proof that: the results of sims clearly show."
________________________________
You have the Cant statement that he claims I said "the results of sims clearly show" right above and the only mentions of sims in the entire post which dealt with the bow effect, not the floating advantage which was the topic of the Brh post Cant claims I stole from Brh without attribution.
Clearly he has repeatedly told an insulting and provable lie for his own purposes.
Now to his recent post on bjmath concerning the postulate:
Cant: "if E(i+1,m)-E(i,m)< E(i,m)-E(i-1,m) for all i's then a floating advantage exists.
This statement is wrong in that the difference between the true count perdiction of edge and actual edge can be positive or negative."
ML: Absolutely wrong. I was dealing with expected values as was clear. The expected value is one value and is not a prediction of actual edge. I cannot be because it is the mean of the values of defined random variables (the expectation of all the subsets of a specific true count derived from a set of an arbitrary starting set of cards) when all the values are counted (samples approach infinity). Prediction has nothing to do with that exact value. To say it does admits ignorance of what an expected value is.
Cant: "Nor is the above true for mean compositions in that prior distributions, as per my totally correct proof, make the mean for a true count prediction ever less likely."
ML: As stated above an expected value is not a prediction. Further, since the starting stack was arbitrary and the subsets which have an expected value come from the original arbitrary set, there can be no "drift" as my postulate was formulated because it started with arbitrary sets and the postulate was for subsets of arbitrary starting sets.
Again, trying to translate and possibly getting it wrong, Cant is saying an expected value is something like sim data and it is his claim sim data gets more and more inexact as more cards are exhausted but he seems to have no conception expected values are by definition exact. He can claim to his heart's content the postulate is wrong because it is too all encompassing. But he cannot claim it is incorrect because of some kind of measurement or predictive error. There is no measurement or predictive error in a mathematical proof dealing with expected values. By definition there cannot be.
And there is no mathematical validity in stating the proof was wrong because it was conditioned on a postulate containing the proposition the bow effect exists in the mathematical form expressed in the postulate when the proof was couched in an "if,then" format which postulated the mathematical relationships which the postulate did.
So I have wasted another morning and part of an afternoon on an ignorant troll but maybe it is not wasted. Cant is nearly indecipherable except for his insults but now I think he is exposed as a person of no integrity, no mathematical knowledge, and rather stupid because he claims to know things he does not even slightly understand. I hope this exposure helps put Cant's trolling in perspective.
