JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
No.
First, stop blaming your critics for the lack of progress. You are the obstruction. We have a second source of evidence for this proposition, so don't try to argue it. You tried to play your customary games elsewhere and they told you to knock it off and get to the point. You did, and they saw immediately that you had nothing besides the game-playing. It's obvious to us too that you have nothing beyond game-playing; unfortunately there's nothing about that that's against ISF rules, so no basis to challenge your ongoing participation on those grounds.
Second, we have been treating this as a teaching moment for years. But you ignore it and insist on pretending to be the teacher, not the student. I and a few others expended probably more than 200 man-hours each in 2017 trying to explain basic concepts to you, only to be insulted or ignored in return. You are not the teacher, Jabba. And history has proven you to be a terrible student. When I was teaching college I could have literally taught someone the entire field of computational statistics in the time I've expended trying to hammer basic concepts into your head to no avail.
Third, you display no interest in progress, so stop pretending that's your goal. Every time we make some, you dissolve it in a fringe reset and change up all the language. Stop pretending this isn't a debate -- one that you lost years ago and are just trying to perpetuation for personal reasons.
Almost everyone in this thread knows more about mathematics, statistics, and logic than you do. You need to extend your apology to everyone whose expertise you have ignored or maligned. I'm serious about this. If you're serious about learning, you first need to apologize to everyone who's been trying to teach a problem student. You boasted that you ignore practically all posts, and even of the ones you do read you only read the first line. When you approach the forum in such prima donna fashion, it's really hard to make stick the accusation that your critics are somehow derelict in a duty to educate you.
Make a broad apology, covering all your many sins, and then maybe we'll consider forgiving you.
That's a bald-faced lie.
This was your arrogant boast less than a week ago, long after jsfisher handed you your head.
Stop pretending that after five years you've suddenly changed your entire character. Since all your other social-engineering attempts didn't work, now you're just trying to curry enough sympathy to blunt the well-deserved criticism that's been lately heaped upon you.
You came at this debate with a know-it-all perspective, dismissing almost everything that everyone else says in favor of your declaration that you still must be somehow correct, clinging frantically to anything and everything that seemed to dispute your critics. Although you learned to avoid it overtly here, when you went elsewhere you renewed your disdain for atheists and scientists. There's no use pretending that has suddenly changed.
Jsfisher and others proposed tests to expose your ignorance. They succeeded. But before they succeeded, you tried every social-engineering trick you could think of to get people to feed you the answers so that you could pretend you knew them all along. You shamed people for not being "helpful." You played the victim. That's what you do. You don't actually have an argument. You just have a palette of social engineering tricks that is fairly common among fringe theorists. But we're onto your shameless tricks, Jabba. Just because the rules require us to suffer them doesn't mean we have to let you get away with them.
Stop pretending, Jabba. You just want someone to give you the answers so you can pretend you knew them all along. That's what you do. You'll be right back pretending to be an expert as soon as you can convince people to stop criticizing you. Keep in mind, you "hope [people] would just agree."
You know you've been told what the problems with your proof are. Here's the link again. http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=11871278&postcount=3198
You know you can't answer these. Your only attention to them has been to try to turn them into yet another way to to tie your critics up in your usual shell game. You know full well the purpose of that test is to prevent you from playing it. You know what the problems are and you know on what footing they have to be addressed in order to be acceptable in form to your critics. So get to it and quit whining about how badly everyone is treating you.
You should be learning elsewhere what one needs to know about basic statistics before coming back to defend your proof. Nobody here is required to spoon-feed you the basic statistics information you should have already learned before professing to be be an expert. Your critics have correctly told you what is wrong with your proof. Your inability to understand neither the proof nor the criticism is not something obligates people to expend any more time correcting your ignorance more than they already have. You have to take the responsibility to learn. Blaming your critics for being naturally unwilling to teach an arrogant student is just more arrogance.
Oh, while we're thinking about it: you probably need to go to everyplace where you've claimed to be a "certified statistician" and correct that wholly misguided claim, which you now seem to have retracted. And let's here no more about any such claims to expertise.
The same way probability density it fits into every statistics problem that ever lived. In beginning statistics we generally stick with probabilities as scalar real-valued numbers because it's easier for the concepts to sink in. But in real life, probabilities are functions that describe the density across some interesting domain. Specifying the parameters of those functions and applying calculus gives us real-number values when those need to happen. But otherwise the basic concepts you learned in the only statistics class you've evidently taken are extended to embrace functional values, and that's where the real science of statistics lies. You need to learn about that before you claim you've solved a very vexing problem using statistics that apparently is so highly evolved only you get it. If you but look back over all the posts I and others have written over the past twelve months -- you ignored them all before, remember? -- you can probably get some idea of what you're lacking.
Now stop trying to get people to do your homework for you. You want to be seen as a statistical genius who's proven a hard problem in philosophy? Pay your damn dues!
