Cant has been posting on this board and others, I am told, I fraudulently switched means some way or another in the proof I posted below. The problem with that is the values he said were means were not means, they were undefined values which is what is invariably used in mathematical proofs of the form posted.
Consider the term x >y. The value of x and y are undefined but everyone understands the term x and y stand for specific undefined values. Clearly, Cant did not understand this elementary, universally used mathematical convention and called terms in my proof something they were not, means rather than undefined values, and then went on to accuse me of fraud when he simply did not understand elementary concepts and said I was saying something I never said at all.
And he did that despite there being internal wording in the proof as to what I was using was undefined values even if he was ignorant of standard forms of mathematical proof and standard notations. Theorem II starts "As cards are removed from a stack of cards, creating subsets of the original set of cards, all the possible subsets of a specific number of cards will demonstrate various true counts, either less than, identical to, or greater than the original true count and the distribution of true counts is normal around the original true count." I clearly stated we were talking about removing from "one stack of cards" and "creating subsets of the *original* (emphasis supplied) set". I did not say original sets or average set but made clear one specific set was being looked at as is required by the rigors of mathematical proof. Further, by coincidence, the proof used an averaging process and used different terminology to set such expressions aside from the expressions which stood for undefined values.
So, because of his ignorance of elementary terminology, even if the terminology should have been apparent in context, he has repeatedly accused me of fraud and said I was doing it because I often agree on things like this with Don Schlesinger and was a clone trying to put Cant down.
His remarks were inaccurate and insulting and I think the appropriate and fair thing to do would be to publicly apologise both here and the other places he posted these insults.