***My Case Against Cyrus***

[BruceZ]

Introduction

I stated many months ago that I would not be responding directly to any more posts by the entity known as "Cyrus". I also explained why, so I do not understand the recent nonsensical speculation by this individual, but alas, there is nothing unusual about that.

Just to make it crystal clear, I don't respond to this individual because I regard him as beneath contempt. So much so that it irritates me to even reference him by name, so I will heretofore just refer to him as "the individual". I've stated some of the reasons for that here, but much has happened since that post.

To the many new forum members who might not know about the problem with this poster, I offer this as a warning to you about him, and I hereby present to you the facts to back up my assessments. Unlike the poster in question, I will stick only to facts, and I will provide all links so that you may research this as deeply as you please and form your own conclusions. I know that forum management is on my side with this effort, and as you will see, this member has been thoroughly discredited on every forum on which he posts, not just by me, but by Mason and others as well.

Episode 1

My very first exposure to this individual occurred when he first came to this forum in March of this year. He made his entrance with a number of flamboyant, condescending posts filled with sarcasm and no substance. Soon after, I made a post in which I defined the legal definition of a "terroristic threat". Of course I had certain knowledge that this was the correct legal term because I had just been briefed on the subject by none other than a circuit court judge, and the purpose of my post was specifically to present this information. The individual informed me here that there was "no such word as 'terroristic'".

As you can plainly see, and contrary to his current statements, my first response was to inform him that this word was in fact in the dictionary, and to present two web links to legal documents containing this word. Smug that I'd scored a slam dunk on this new wise guy, I figured that was the end of it. Boy was I was wrong. Little did I know that I had stumbled upon an individual with a very big problem. He cannot be wrong. Instead of ending, the thread dragged on for the better part of a week, and extended into other threads on the forum. Recently, Wake up CALL hit the nail on the head when he recognized the same problem in this thread. That the individual would now bring up this episode as some kind of an attack on *me* almost defies belief.

Episode 2

Sometime later, while I was presenting a tutorial on standard deviation as I am wont to do, this individual decided that I didn't know what EV was (aside: one of my degrees is in statistics). This debate dragged on for weeks in two different forums, here , and here where the moderator ultimately was forced to collapse the whole thread. Mason interjected several times, saying here that he agreed with “virtually all my points” and describing the individual's logical flaws here and later here and here in connection with another matter. Finally at my wits end, and after constructing every possible explanation I could think of, I presented a post which proved indisputably that my definition was not merely a matter of arbitrary terminology, but followed directly and necessarily from precise mathematical definitions. There was not another word from the individual, after creating all that mess.

Episode 3

Then most recently, this individual himself posed a problem on the probability forum regarding success runs in sequences of Bernoulli trials. Unbeknownst to him, it was a problem that I had been studying for some time. The individual posted some ideas which I pointed out would not provide an exact solution, and I proceeded to post a number of solutions of varying degrees of simplicity, and varying degrees of approximation, all of which were highly acceptable for all practical purposes, but none of which were exact. This led to a host of attacks by the individual. "There is more to the problem than BruceZ realizes!" (really ironic in light of what follows), and "Bruce's notion is unfortunately extremely inadequate", followed by all kinds of off-the-wall whining about some of the irrelevant past issues we've been discussing for which I supposedly had some "pique".

Well all of this motivated me to finally complete the work I had started a full year ago to this day (contrary to his current statements) when I discovered the solution for a special case of this problem using Fibonacci numbers. Subsequently I completely solved the problem and found not one but two separate exact solutions, and I summarized all my data with an elaborate spreadsheet. There was not another word from the individual. I wasn't surprised. He has never made any comments on any specific mathematics I have done, and based on my assessment of his abilities, I'm quite certain that he could not read even the first paragraph of my derivation. Now he writes that I "overstate" my "discoveries", and he even begrudges me the light bulb icon next to my post.

First of all, as you can see, I stated that there was only a slight chance that my formula was original. I later became more hopeful that it might be original based on what I read in the most authoritative text on the subject (Feller) which only offered an approximate solution. Later I went to a university mathematics library to determine if it was truly original, and I found the exact formula I had derived, published for the first time in a 1985 paper, 15 years after Feller died. So as I suspected, Feller did not know of the formula I had derived. I found a trail of interest in this problem dating back to the end of the 19th century. Several mathematicians in the 1970s had tried to derive formulas, and they were not successful in deriving the simple formula which I had derived on our own probability forum in the course of answering some dude’s question! Furthermore, the derivation in the 1985 paper was different and far more complicated than my own. My formula was not original, but my derivation was. Furthermore, my derivation provided new insight into the problem, and it gave rise to an alternative form of the equation which links the solution in a unique way to the Fibonacci difference equation. This work is currently being submitted for publication to a mathematical journal.

SO HOW D'YA LIKE 'DEM APPLES? Have I earned my light bulb now Mr. mathematical critic par nothingness? I can assure you that this individual would have no idea. He wouldn't recognize a landmark idea if one hit him over the head, because one just did. This was also stated by Wake Up CALL in this thread. I could be Carl Friedrich Gauss, and it wouldn’t matter to this individual, he would argue in an identical manner.

Reflection

Now in each of these instances I was able to prove conclusively that this individual was completely wrong, even though he argued vehemently for his position, but it took me a very very long time and an enormous amount of thought and effort to do this, even requiring the breaking of new mathematical ground, and this is over well-defined problems in a field where I’m an expert! Imagine how much trouble you will have unraveling the twisted logic which he spews forth every day on forums such as this one where one discusses complex world issues, and facts commingle with opinion. I say it can’t be done, not without quickly exhausting the amount of time you have for this activity. I know this because I spent too much time, far too much time. I’m telling you all this so you don’t waste the kind of time with this individual that I did, but don’t let him take advantage of the fact that you can’t spend this time, and thus allow him to put forth arguments which parse to logical gibberish. This is what he relies on, that you will not have the time or the ability to expose the flaws in virtually every argument he makes. I have taken the trouble to thorougly discredit him 3 different times, yet even after I rip his limbs and head from his body, like Freddie Kreuger he continues to grope around here clumsily swiping at this and that.

Epilogue

Now the individual has the unmitigated gall to call ME "arrogant. He says I'm arrogant because I know that I am right about things that I say. Well if that's arrogant, then color me arrogant because I *do* make sure I know absolutely and unequivocally that I am right about most things that I post. Now sometimes I push the envelope, and I make mistakes, but I know what I am sure of, and I know what I am not sure of. If I wanted to be right all the time, I could do that easily, I would just only post things that I was absolutely sure about. I almost do that now, but I wouldn't post quite as many things. If you want to know what I'm sure about and what I'm not sure about, ask me. I'll always be right about the things I say I'm sure about, I guarantee it. It is apparently a foreign concept to this individual that someone can be absolutely sure about something. I don't know what his background is, but I can assure you that in my profession and at my level it's quite common, really. I knew absolutely that I was right about the various issues discussed above. This individual hasn’t the slightest concept of how trivial many of these things are to me. The difference is that this individual talks about many things he doesn't know anything about as if he is sure about them, whereas I mainly only talk about things that I know for sure.

The individual seems to have made some misguided assumptions about my status in life, and I'm not about to give him any information, except to say that I've already retired from high standing in one profession, and am now primarily engaged in giving something back, so no, I can't say that my alleged “arrogance” has impeded me in my goals.

This individual doesn't seem to know much about scientists, mathematicians, and engineers, because I can't think of one very famous one who wasn't arrogant. If there were any that weren't, they did an awfully good job of hiding it. If you're going to set out to discover what no one else has yet discovered, you better be damn arrogant, and have an ego the size of Jupiter. There is; however, one thing that these great men don't do, and that is they don't waste a lot of time on endeavors like this one. I won't either.

[andyfox]

"Now the individual has the unmitigated gall to call ME "arrogant"

This post, plus your upper case ME, go a long way towards strengthening his case.

[nicky g]

"There is; however, one thing that these great men don't do, and that is they don't waste a lot of time on endeavors like this one. I won't either. "

Too late. Now where's that stick i left lying around?

[nicky g]

"Moi" would have captured the flavour a little better.

[adios]

Have you ever displayed arrogance? I plead guilty. I think his point is that "the individual" ought to take a look in the mirror before disparaging someone else for being arrogant. How many people haven't displayed arrogance at some point?

[adios]

"Imagine how much trouble you will have unraveling the twisted logic which he spews forth every day on forums such as this one where one discusses complex world issues, and facts commingle with opinion."

Yeah but on this forum it seems kind of ok. None of us are going to change each others minds about politics or world affairs. Hopefully we all get a little insight from each other. It's unfortunate that on another forum where perhaps a more rigorous and logical treatment of a subject enhances the discussion that "the individual" obscures that and detracts from it.

[Boris]

lmao

[MMMMMM]

nicky I didn't think you had it in you.

So I take that at minimum you agree that some cultures tend to be more arrogant than others?

[Michael Davis]

If his persistent harassment led to the breaking of new mathematical ground, wouldn't this be a good thing?

This post is one of the most immature things I have ever read. It masquerades as a legitimate piece, but it is pathetic. I'm sure you realize such after reading the responses.

I won't have the gall to call you arrogant. I'm too afraid.

-Mike

[BruceZ]

Just doing a public service while defending myself from an attack made on me below, Mr. Davis. You should be more grateful. I was also requested to state these points, directly and indirectly, by several people.

I don't see how a piece can be arrogant when all it does is review facts.