Note below that Caveman has not responded to my last two assertions.
And he won't be, because he's suspended for a month for his incivility -- you know, one of your most important ground rules for "effective debate." The problem is not whether people are being civil. The problem is that you have a double standard for your expectations of civility.
Remember when I asked you to reconcile your proposed "friendliness" gatekeeper policy with your increasing reliance on Caveman's self-serving intercessions? While you justify your dismissal of everyone else by whining about imagined insults from them and telling them they aren't being friendly enough, you allowed Caveman to be wantonly rude and insulting on your behalf, to the point where the forum management had to act on it. Why did you allow him to do that? You say he has good points. But so do all the other people you brush off, so that's not it. You insinuate he approves of your argument. But he has said several times that your proof is hopeless. As usual, you ignore whatever is critical of you, so that part of his presentation never seems to rise to your attention.
No, let's be honest. You invite him to your party solely because he nit-picks your critics and is mean to them. That's what thread-nannies do. They just jump into whatever thread they want without reading it and go after what they think are easy targets, on flimsy and inconsequential pretexts. Their only interest is in being pedantically correct, whether it matters to anything or not. Presently that annoyance suits your purpose because it gives some of your critics someone else to talk to, and that takes the heat off you. But don't pretend that the enemy of your enemy is your friend. He too has tried to show you what's wrong with your proof, but as with all your other critics you just pretend he doesn't exist until you need him to run interference for you. You've demonstrated you don't understand or care what he has to say about your proof. And what he has to say about it isn't any more supportive than what you're getting from your other critics. So it's disingenuous of you now to stall the debate on the pretense that his input is so crucial.
Jabba, it's up to you whether we spend the rest of today and/or the next couple of days addressing your tantrums instead of your mathematical proof. You ask how you should be spending your time here? Show us you make good decisions. Hint: the pouting isn't working.
On the matter of the non-uniform distribution of human-bearing centuries across all time, it seems we have made some headway in getting you to see why that may be important. Now that you agree it can't just be ignored, can you please provide a one- or two-sentence summary of how you plan to correct your proof to account for it?
On the matter of what role "now" plays in your proof, you seem to be almost completely silent. There is a clear contradiction between parts of your argument that, on the one hand, rely upon the natural meaning of "now" and, on the other hand, suggest that "now" is (statistically speaking) a uniformly distributed random variable. We've given you examples of how "now" cannot be that variable. But the convolution you propose in your proof requires "now" to be a uniform random variable, otherwise you're computing the convolution incorrectly. This remains a fatal error in your proof. Will you please address the examples? And no, I will not remind you of what they are.
