Elliott Wave International

Letters to the Editor of Scientific American

The June 1999 issue of Scientific American begins, "Benoit B. Mandelbrot's article "A Multifractal Walk Down Wall Street" in the February issue elicited myriad responses from readers." Among those addressing the "Elliott" question, only Robert Prechter's letter was published. Fortunately, a few of the many excellent letters not published in the magazine were cc'd to our web site, so we can reproduce them here for you.

April 4, 1999

Attention editors of Scientific American,
This message is about the article "A Multifractal Walk Down Wall Street" by Benoit B. Mandelbrot in the February 1999 issue of Scientific American. I am sending this message for two reasons: (1) To say well done for putting the above article on your cover, and (2) To protest that Mandelbrot did not give credit to R.N. Elliott as the first person who modeled financial markets using multifractals. It is appropriate that in these times of a high profile to the stock market that a scientific point of view is published. Mandelbrot is right is saying that the current models do not perform well and that better models are required. His fairly simple model of markets using fractals quickly shows how fractals model the market much more closely than modern portfolio theory. His article and reputation bring much needed credibility to this fascinating area of investigation. However, while Mandelbrot is providing this benefit to financial modeling he is subtracting from his own integrity. Mandelbrot states on the second page of his article the following: "I claim that variations in financial prices can be accounted for by a model derived from my work in fractal geometry." Notice how Mandelbrot states 'my work in fractal geometry'. The reader can imply that Mandelbrot is the first to use fractals to model financial prices. It is true that the model Mandelbrot uses can model the variations in financial prices, but it is NOT true that Mandelbrot was the first to do so.

Mandelbrot should have been scientifically honest enough to cite R. N. Elliott as being the first person to publish a fractal approach to analyzing financial markets - way back in the 1930's. The word 'fractal' was not coined at that time, but it is clearly the contribution that Elliott made. Even the diagrams that Mandelbrot shows in illustration 1 in the article are strikingly similar to many diagrams published in Elliott's writings. Examples of Elliott's diagrams are Figures 3 and 4 in "The Wave Principle" (1938), and Figures 5 to 13 in "Nature's Law" (1946). Elliott's publications are still available - see "The Major Works of R. N. Elliott" published by New Classics Library which contains these and other Elliott publications. Mandelbrot has published a book that criticizes Elliott, so we know Mandelbrot is aware of Elliott's work. The book is "Fractals and Scaling in Finance: Discontinuity, Concentration, Risk" - listed under "Further Reading" in the article - so Mandelbrot cannot excuse himself out of ignorance. Mr. Mandelbrot is deservedly famous for his work on fractals and chaos, but is less than professional in his attitude to Elliott's contribution.

Scientific American has a valuable opportunity to further it's contribution to science by pursuing this debate further. Scientific debate is always healthy, especially when it affects something at the foundations of our way of life - money. Your magazine could publish an article about R.N. Elliott to present a balanced view. Mr. Robert Prechter Jr. who heads Elliott Wave International in Gainesville, Georgia is appropriately knowledgeable about Elliott to provide such an article. -- Eugene Morrow, Sydney, Australia

March 5, 1999

Down Wall Street again!

An investor’s principal question is: "How can I make money tomorrow?" In "A Multifractal Walk Down Wall Street," Benoit Mandelbrot has woven a chaotic pattern of claims and self-defeating counterclaims. There is an incorrect implication that, by employing the principles of fractal geometry, the investor’s question has been answered. In the process he has borrowed generously without citations and incurred the ire of many proponents of the Elliott Wave theory. Perhaps the same is true of supporters of Burton Malkiel, one of his colleagues at my old Alma Mater, who authored "A Random Walk Down Wall Street." One is hard-pressed to succinctly unscramble such a tangle of short threads.

Mandelbrot labors to force his multifractals to resemble a specific period of price history. With that as his only guiding rule, unfortunately, any other technique, including a kid drawing freehand with a crayon, should accomplish the same minimum noise result. Logically, he first reasons that stock price fluctuations are governed by rules which he does not know. He demonstrates that he can replicate a period of reality from a stock chart using a sequence of 3 vectors divided into multiply nested 3-vector offspring. But then he incorrectly assumes that the rules of reality automatically apply equally to both representations, and that through some magic of fractal geometry, his model somehow contains new and valuable information not contained in the original price chart.

By his own admission, his simulation has essentially no predictive power. In a 2-part article entitled "Pseudo securities for Technical Analysts" which will soon be published in Technical Analysis of Stocks and Commodities (www.traders.com), I graphically illustrate a basic problem in modeling to which Mandelbrot’s replicas are subject. In essence, one may make numerous radically different mathematical models that over a limited time span appear to accurately mimic reality. However, such models for the investor are valid only if, when allowed to run in time beyond the limits of the analysis span, they continue to accurately mimic both previous history, and more important, the future. The rules of cause and effect still appear to be ignored at one’s peril.

His stress test is to compare his "model" to the original data source he copied. There’s little surprise that he might subtract the two and get the small difference noise signals in his illustrations, regardless of the degree of volatility involved. It is unclear how a portfolio manager might profitably stress test a portfolio (or a security) by comparing it to a purposely-inaccurate approximation of itself over the time span selected.

Finally, Mandelbrot suggests that with further work, his invention may become a useful predictor of future stock prices. Indeed, your readers should be informed that it already has! R. N. Elliott in the 1930’s recognized that the markets follow a succession of zig-zag "waves" consisting of a 5-up then 3-down core structure. If, as seems logical, Elliott considered the simpler 3-wave structure, he rejected it as not being valid when he formulated his final model of market behavior. Both Elliott and Mandelbrot recognized that their basic patterns in real life are fractals, being composed of smaller repetitions of themselves, and multiples of themselves being the building blocks for larger look-alike structures. The word fractal had, of course, not been coined in Elliott’s time. The Elliott Wave principle subsequently has been widely studied and applied, somewhat refined, and made available in several software applications that run on a modern home computer.

Elliott’s fundamental approach was exactly opposite that of Mandelbrot. His theory, with it’s hundreds of rules and guidelines was developed from a meticulous combing of historical records to find the real basis for the bits and pieces of the fractals, and to determine painstakingly the myriad ways the market fits them together. That’s just what Mandelbrot hopes to accomplish in the future.

Charles E. Miller
P. O. Box 160
Carlisle MA 01741
978-369-7074

February 22, 1999

Your article on Benoit Mandelbrot’s "discovery" that markets exhibit fractal like price behavior prompts a sharp response since Professor Mandelbrot’s insight was predated by decades by R.N. Elliott. His "Wave Principle" has been in the public domain since the 1940s and has been used with enormous success by such high profile market operators as Edson Gould.

Long disparaged by mainstream investment theory and academia, Elliotticians within the broad discipline of technical analysis could have told Professor Mandelbrot how to apply his mathematics to the marketplace. Technical analysts generally welcome academics’ growing awareness that the skilled use of tools within our trade produce a level of success in forecasting market movements. However, it seems rather ironic that having derided technical analysis and Elliott in particular, that the academic establishment should suddenly decide that it works and take credit for it.

I write to you as a practitioner using Elliott’s theories to forecast daily movements in the interest rate and currency markets. With a consistently high degree of accuracy in my daily work for major institutional clients, I can assure you that I have known and used Professor Mandelbrot’s so-called insight for years. His assertion is ludicrous.

Should you wish to take a balanced view in the matter, I suggest you inquire with Robert Prechter of Elliott Wave International. Bob is the foremost Elliottician in the world, and since the 1970s has been the torch bearer of Elliott’s work to the next generation of market analysts. -- Sincerely, Nina G. Cooper, President, Pendragon Research Inc.

February 16, 1999

Mr. Prechter, upon hearing of the Mandelbrot article, my anger got the best of me and so I decided to send (and have sent) the following e-mail to Scientific American: "In the February 1999 issue of Scientific American, you included an article by the above author entitled "A Multifractal Walk Down Wall Street." You probably need to know that your inclusion of that article has worked to tarnish the image of Scientific American, as the author, in writing his article, appears to have borrowed heavily from the ideas of others without giving credit where credit is due. In fact, it is rather pathetic that the author has previously chosen to dismiss the work of R. N. Elliott while at the same time borrowing heavily from Elliott's theories about the market. Before including future articles on the same subject, you may want to become familiar with the works of R. N. Elliott and Robert Prechter. It is my hope that you will then be able to ferret out the Elliott-Wannabes like Mr. Mandelbrot or at least force such authors to give credit where credit is due. P.S. Please pass this on to Mr. Mandelbrot, as his ego should not be spared knowledge of the consequences of his actions and inactions." Nuff said. -- EL

February 16, 1999

Bob, I am today e-mailing the following letter to the editors of Scientific American: To a person with a deep interest in financial theory, just reading the title of Mr. Mandelbrot's paper indicates that it must have something to do with the Elliott Wave Principle first described almost 70 years ago. But as the reading continues, curiosity and enjoyment begin yielding to astonishment, which turns into outright dismay at the end of the paper: No mention of R.N. Elliott, Robert Prechter, A.J. Frost and others? How can that be? Is Mr. Mandelbrot so arrogant that he believes nobody else matters, or is he so ignorant that he has never heard of the books and papers in which others described the fractal geometry of financial markets? As it's hard to imagine that Mr. Mandelbrot would be unaware of these other contributions, one arrives at the conclusion that arrogance may be the engine at work. Mr. Mandelbrot's attitude to acknowledge the work of nobody and to recommend only himself for "further reading" appears to be an ego trip that lies outside the standard deviation of decent scientific behavior. It seems that scientific self-centeredness can run away in a manic pattern, just as the behavior of market participants occasionally bursts out in "irrational exuberance." Mr. Mandelbrot is not the first scientist who fell deeply in love with himself. The knowledge of this phenomenon prompts raising another question: Does Scientific American have something like a peer review? If the answer is no, then maybe the magazine should learn from this experience and consider establishing such a system - just to protect its own reputation. If the answer is yes and if Mr. Mandelbrot's paper was indeed reviewed, shouldn't a flag have gone up at the realization that all recommended "Further Reading" bears the authors name? Credentialism is a perpetually recurring and non-eradicable quirk in the realm of investment where the misdirection of capital to those "who have done it before" recently pushed the world to the brink of a financial meltdown. Credentialism in the scientific field may be less hazardous to the general population, but it is no less upsetting to the few who are affected by it. More likely than not, credentialism was the mechanism that prompted the rubber stamping of Mr. Mandelbrot's paper: If the theme has something to do with fractal geometry, can anybody dare lecture the man who wrote the book about fractals? To be a good reviewer, it is not enough to have an in-depth understanding of the pertinent field of science. One must also be able to rationalize that even the most accomplished individuals, be they scientists, artists, statesmen or whatever, remain humans and can frequently not conquer to the most basic human instincts and emotions. Consequently, good reviewers must be able to stand up to the big names of their field when ego, pride and other ingredients of human nature threaten to overwhelm the established rules of decent scientific demeanor. -- Eduard J. Botz

February 16, 1999

Dear Editor, I am appalled that a publication as respected and as well read as Scientific American would publish such a blatant piece of plagiarism as was written by Mr. Mandelbrot. It's very surprising to me that a journal such as yours, which I have always immensely enjoyed consuming, would insult all who have studied the Elliott Wave Principle by condoning dishonesty among writers who are supposed scientists in the pursuit of truth. Disappointedly, -- Dr. Rashid A. Buttar, Emergency Medicine, Preventive Medicine

February 16, 1999

I appreciate the work of Mr. Mandelbrot through his books, but [was] astonished to hear that he has made no due reference to the work of R.N. Elliott, developed in the '30´s. From the '30´s this theory has been developed by Bolton, Frost and, nowadays, by Mr Prechter of Elliott Wave International. -- Guillermo Zatarain, Madrid, Spain.

February 15, 1999

Today, I read Benoit Mandelbrot's article "Multifractal Walk Down Wall Street." In it, he does a good job of arguing against the prevailing assumptions at the heart of Modern Portfolio Theory. (Those assumptions remain dear to the heart of academic economists even though the person on the trading floor knows them to be false.) He also furthers the understanding of stock prices as fractals with his method for modeling them. Unfortunately, the model bears a large number of similarities to work that precedes his by years, even decades. Mandlebrot's model borrows heavily from RN Elliott's work during the 30's. This work has since been refined by Robert Prechter and AJ Frost. The similarity becomes very striking when comparing Mandlebrot's article side-by-side with previously published work. For example, Mandelbrot's figure 1 is little more than a simplified version of figures 1-2 to 1-4 in Frost and Prechter's "Elliott Wave Principle" published in 1978. That's twenty one years ago! In 1978, Frost and Prechter did not yet refer to market prices or the wave model that describes them as fractals. The term fractal was still new, and fractal methods and concepts were still too arcane. However, now writers, investors and analysts such as Prechter, Bill WIlliams and others have understood, discussed and published on the fractal nature of the market and waves for over a decade. Yet nothing is mentioned in Mandlebrot's article, and ALL items in the further reading refer to his work and his work ALONE. I never anticipated referring to a genius of Mandelbrot's caliber as unprofessional, but I find the need now. Had a graduate student of mine written a paper that only referred to his own work, he would quickly find himself sent to do more research in the library! I look forward to Mandlebrot's future work, which should add greater mathematical rigor to our understanding of the fractal nature of market prices and the tendency of markets to trend with waves of various duration. It will help advance the field. But it will advance a field that already exists, whether he acknowledges it or not. I know that I can respect the integrity of Scientific American. I look forward to an editorial comment in a future issue correcting the false impressions left by an otherwise useful article. -- James J. Donovan, PhD

February 15, 1999

To the Editors of Scientific American: That Dr. Mandelbrot coined his own word for "self-similar" points to an overactive ego. Your February article supports this. It may be impossible to say whether Mandelbrot knew of Ralph Elliott's 1930s discoveries before he verified them in several complex systems, but by now he ought to be objective enough to share credit with his remarkable predecessor. This especially so in an article dealing with Elliott's venue, the financial markets. That you allowed such an ommission is an unfortunate collaboration in the mis-writing of history. -- Andrew Robin, Center Sandwich, New Hampshire

January 30, 1999

Letter: Re A Fractal Walk
There's no getting around the insight and brilliance, not to mention just plain truth, embodied in Benoit B. Mandelbrot's piece in the February issue of Scientific American. But the omission of any reference to the work of R. N. Elliott, A. J. Frost, and R. R. Prechter, et al. is just too glaring to pass unremarked. Market technicians have used fractal analysis since Elliott introduced it in the 1930s, though to my knowledge the term fractal may have been first applied as late as Prechter's 1990 report "The Fractal Design of Social Progress".

Mandelbrot's analysis is best regarded as a refinement of this prior work. This point is strikingly and most graphically brought home by a quick comparison of the four diagrams in illustration 1 with Figs. 1-1 to 1-4 in Frost and Prechter's 1978 book, Elliott Wave Principle; see also Prechter's riveting 1995 sequel At the Crest of the Tidal Wave (both New Classics Library). These financial classics certainly merit a place on the recommended reading list. -- William E. Terrell, Stafford, VA

June 11, 1999

I think this is a non-issue, and that no one benefits by the argument. In mathematics, it is the mathematical characterization that counts, so--as Mandelbrot first defined fractals mathematically--Mandelbrot did indeed discover fractals, and fractals in finance. I myself have seen firsthand the hostility accorded Mandelbrot in having done so (in economics departments and in finance).

With respect to Elliott, an analogy with respect to Brownian motion may be illuminating. Brownian motion is named after Robert Brown because he first observed the phenomena in a *general* context in 1827 even though Brown himself cites at least one earlier observation of the phenomena in a specific context of fish eyes.

However, the first mathematical descriptions of Brownian motion were given independently by Louis Bachelier in 1900 and Albert Einstein in 1905. So it might be said the latter two individuals "discovered" Brownian motion. But, of course, the mathematicians wanted a much more rigorous development, which didn't come along until Norbert Wiener in 1923. So maybe Wiener created Brownian motion (the "Wiener process").

In the same spirit as Brown, Elliott clearly observed fractals in financial markets, and can be said to have "discovered" financial fractals. But in the same spirit as Bachelier and Einstein, Mandelbrot "discovered" fractals because he defined the term and gave a specific mathematical characterization. It is only because of Mandelbrot that most in an academic environment would pay any attention to Elliott. (This approach to truth may not be justified, but that's the way it goes anyway.)

When I first encountered Robert Prechter (in 1984 on FNN, channel 64 in the Philadelphia area), and then the term "Elliott Wave", I immediately recognized it as a fractal approach to financial markets--although it was an open question in my view whether the structure of these fractals necessary followed the form specified by Elliott.

So I have no problem with your (Robert Prechter's, whoever's) statement that Elliott discovered fractals in financial markets. Clearly Elliott did. Clearly Prechter was justified in adopting the name "fractal" as a description of Elliott's description.

Nor do I have any problem with Mandelbrot's saying he discovered fractals in financial markets, because he created and popularized the entire mathematical concept. If you read Mandelbrot's books, you will see that he goes out of his way to point out predecessors. And if Mandelbrot doesn't think Elliott is that interesting, he--of all people--show be allowed that right. But I think you should feel quite free (and not defensive) about ignoring Mandelbrot on this point. -- Regards, J. Orlin Grabbe, Ph.D.

June 11, 1999

I haven't spoken to you for many years but I wish to congratulate you on your response to the Journal artical on Mandelbrot. I have read a number of articles and books written by Mandelbrot over the years and I endorse your overall rebutle of his recent article whole heartedly. I was in fact very lucky to have subscribed in May (having read Mandelbrot's article in the Scientific American) not knowing that you would refute his claims but delighted that you took him on so head on. In some of my own research over the years and in business practice in general, I have found a tendency for people to claim all sorts of innovations as their own. This practice is disturbing to the investigative mind (which of its nature is non defensive) that your rebuttle is all the more pleasing. In fact, I think that the way you analysed the article and carefully went through each passage was first rate. As a long term advocate of your work, I commend you. Keep up your good work (as you know I disagree with some of your conclusions but respect the fact that you come to them via a premise) and never let these charlatans stamp over your fertile ground. Best wishes -- Stephen Barrett

June 1, 1999

I have really enjoyed your response to the Mandelbrot articles. Your writing style seems a bit different than the one in your prior books. The style reflects a matured thinker and writer and exudes a high level of confidence - these may be peculiar words to describe a writer, but, Bob, these articles show a style that is way beyond mere technical analysis. I think you have moved to a higher level on Ellliot's work. -- George

May 24, 1999

I find it appalling that R.N. Elliott would plagerize the work of Professor Mandelbrot decades before Mandelbrot created it. Perhaps Prof. Mandelbrot could teach a course in ethics someplace. Has anyone investigated his response to students who are a bit lax with those annoying quote marks? -- Sincerely, Pete Shamlian

May 21, 1999

Thank you for your [on-line essay]; I enjoyed reading it. I am a scientist and it has always irritated me when "credit is not given where it is due". As I have moved through my career, I have come across scientists who only reference themselves, who will not recognize others’ work, and, fortunately only seldom, who steal others ideas and claim them for their own. As these behaviors are carried out in the public arena, refute and condemnation should also be carried out there. I would urge you to submit the material in your "Special Report" to "Scientific America" . They should be willing to air both sides, hopefully. -- Jodie V. Johnson, Ph.D., Chemistry Department, University of Florida

May 21, 1999

Thanks for your well-documented and thorough essays regarding Benoit Mandelbrot's intellectual theft of the ideas, even the principles, of R.N. Elliott's seminal works. I, too, am appalled at the reckless use of language, or should I say deliberate use of pejorative terminology by Mandelbrot ... whose only intent can be to denigrate and dismiss the pioneering works that so definitely preceded his 'tinkerings'. I find it refreshing that someone, anyone, would stand on the principle of "credit-where-credit-is-due", one of many concepts I'd thought had left the planet --- or at least the small corner in which I reside...

...RN Elliott should get all the credit he is due. Further, YOU have already seen to this, much to your credit as well as his, through your books, newsletters, other writings, etc.

But it's a very different world these days. I believe, somehow, someday, some of the time-tested concepts from a foregone time will return ---- truth, honor, courtesy, earnings, etc, .... and a whole host things I'd list in kind. It jes' ain't happenin' yet!

In the mean time, thanks for your fantastic work; there are many of us who appreciate it immensely. RIP, RN Elliott. -- k skinner, pclv.com

May 31, 1999

Just a few words of comment and advice re "fractal walk down Wall St."

First & foremost, Sci. Am. is not a scientific journal: I have never submitted anything to this magazine myself but I believe it does not perform pre-publication peer review. I know of no scientific or mathematical journal which publishes without expert review nor do I believe a journal would publish any paper accompanied by literature references restricted entirely to the author's prior publications - I have never seen one yet and I have read and reviewed thousands of physical chemistry papers during the last 60 years. Nor have I ever seen the phrase "I claim that " used! At the most, one could accept "I propose...". The use of such an arrogant phrase denotes to me that Mandelbrot is something of a charlatan. Though I cannot claim to have read his publications, I don't think his contributions have been exceptionally original nor involved abstruse concepts. There are others in the field who have made some really useful contributions and are continuing to do so: Ian Stewart, Warwick Univ. UK. has done tremendous original work on fractal-enhancement of photos which Mandelbrot refers to in his article but without any reference to Stewart's work! 18 years or so ago, my brother (who had retired) developed fractal-generating programs for his "souped-up" SINCLAIR !!! computer so that he could generate 3-dimensional models of polymer molecules and rotate them about any designated axis. Unfortunately, in spite of my urgings he never published the work because he felt that he didn't know the prior literature well enough to write a paper on the subject (he'd become more interested in Chinese dialects.) I still have his programs but haven't tried to translate them for a Mac since there are now programs available in plenty. Anyway, whether or not Mandelbrot's work is really original is not the point. My point is simply that if you have a worthwhile contribution to make why publish it in Sci.Am? The answer is that no self-respecting journal would accept it without review.

Last and perhaps(?) more important, I suspect his basic method is at fault. There is not one math expression in his article but as far as I can judge he generates his patterns or "explanations" of market behaviour from THREE "pieces" of trend and then reverses the pattern to generate the counter-trend. In other words, he doesn't believe Elliott's basic premise that 3's follow 5's and vice-versa? Perhaps I've missed something in his verbage but I can't see anything in his child-like patterns that shows 5-3-5-3-5 structures. If this is true, then you have a clear avenue in which to proceed to challenge him. Having been subjected to similar failure to acknowledge (my) prior contributions in chemistry I can empathise with your disappointment that Mandelbrot failed to recognize Elliott's original work and the developments of it which you and Frost have made. Such an act is indicative of a small-minded and insecure person but as a psychology student, you would know more about that aspect than myself. I can only say that such people find it hard not to accept an invitation to expound their ideas in public. Good luck and better hunting! -- Sincerely, Harry Godfrey Oswin

May 25, 1999

I have a comment to make about the controversy surrounding Mandelbrot and R.N. Elliott. My father never learned about fractals in school. He did not know who Mandelbrot was. I am 16 years old attending Upper Dublin High School in Pennsylvania and we are studying fractals in math. There is not very much information in our textbook, so our teacher uses programs and recent articles to teach our class about fractals. We have been taught that Mandelbrot was a genius, pioneer, and ten steps short of a Mathematical God in the Twentieth Century. I sat down to write a quaint four-page paper on fractals. My unimaginative topic was the history of Mandelbrot and his cotton. I am rather busy, and that seemed to be the easiest topic at hand. After finding a nice webpage about Mandelbrot's childhood and a brief history on fractals, I returned to the search engine only to uncover a controversy. I honestly do not know what to think. I have the image of a small Frenchman with Einstein hair and a nice IBM computer smiling maniacally while rewriting Elliott's book for a Scientific American article. Can this be true? Certainly not. I understand the need for citing sources. Plagiarism means expulsion from school. I simply cannot understand Mandelbrot's motives, and even fractals cannot clearly represent this man's reality! I am confused, so I hope someone could answer my question. Has Mandelbrot fooled himself into the belief that he "invented the car" seventy years after the inventor made the first model? Or is Mandelbrot actually a genius who compiled these images and predictions using strict mathematical procedure? Is this man we are taught to revere a fraud? --David Wengert

Robert Prechter replies: Mandelbrot is a genius and certainly one of the mathematical gods of the twentieth century. He discovered the ubiquity of fractals and revealed their mathematics. His "Mandelbrot set" was pioneering. Keep in mind that Elliott's and Mandelbrot's financial models are different. Elliott claimed (rightly, in my opinion) to have discovered the pattern behind financial markets, which is a specific fractal. Mandelbrot has not explored pattern but says that markets are indefinite fractals. Mandelbrot's mathematics do not contradict Elliott's model; they support it. Elliott's model does not support Mandelbrot's assumption of a lack of pattern. Elliott also constructed a larger hypothesis that financial markets' fractal pattern is governed by the same Fibonacci mathematics as other growth forms in nature. Mandelbrot does not touch on this subject. Mandelbrot derides Elliott the man with obvious bias, as if to head off anyone's exploring the man's work, and summarily dismisses Elliott's pattern model without any contrary evidence or discussion. Regardless of one's views on fractals, Elliott did come first, and Mandelbrot did read his work. Perhaps Mandelbrot (as some colleagues appear to believe) recoils from the possibility that the reverence he enjoys might be partially parceled out to another. If Elliott is wrong, science will tell us. If Elliott is right, he was a genius comparable to Mandelbrot. Were Elliott alive, he would be urging his primacy with vigor, though with far more courtesy than Mandelbrot has shown. -- RP

Mr. Prechter, you cleared up my confusion concerning Mr. Mandelbrot and I ended up writing my fractal paper on financial fractals. I appreciate you taking the time to answer. Thank you. -- Sincerely, David Wengert

May 22, 1999

Mandelwhat? I find it appalling that R.N. Elliott would plagerize the work of Professor Mandelbrot decades before Mandelbrot created it. Perhaps Prof. Mandelbrot could teach a course in ethics someplace. Has anyone investigated his response to students who are a bit lax with those annoying quote marks? -- Pete Shamlian

May 21, 1999

I like Bob's car inventor analogy, but I have a better analogy. Remember when Vanilla Ice (the rock star) came out with the song, "Ice Ice Baby"? It had a real catchy tune (bass riff). It was really good, and became very popular, very quickly. Only thing is, he happened to steal the basic tune from the song by Queen (with David Bowie) called "Under Pressure" (it was a Music Video, also). Well, one day at the height of Vanilla Ice's fame and fortune he was being interview on Television (MTV, I think) and he was asked about it. The interviewer came right out and said, "didn't you steal that from Queen? Do you know what Vanilla (Mandlebrot) Ice said? He said, "No I didn't, mine is an original tune. The tune in Queen's 'Under Pressure' went like this:" Doo doo doo...da..da do do...do do...Doo doo doo...da..da do do...do do... "But mine went like this:"Doo doo doo... da da do do...do do..... Doo doo doo... da da do do...do do.....The interviewer looked at him somewhat incredulously, but you know something, Vanilla was serious as could be. He really believed that that infinitesimal little pause [betwee "doo doo doo" and "da da do do"] actually made that song his. Needless to say, his popularity plummeted over the coming years. --Rich DeRosa

May 14, 1999

I had seen it before (Mandelbrot). He is ripping Elliott off and knows it. -- Steven W. Poser, President, Global Market Strategies, Inc.

February 16, 1999

I purchased a copy of Scientific American today and read the article. I find it interesting, especially in light of the fact that Mandelbrot wrote about Elliott's discoveries in 1997, that he gave no credit at all. I also found it interesting that the article gives a hint of how 'multifractals' might be used to approximate action in the financial markets, but it is very frustrating to attempt to make much sense out of his graphs and relate them to real world events. Am I missing something here? Or is it just that the emperor has no clothes? I would support a collection of, say, $15 per subscriber, to hire a competent mathematitician to go over the article and provide a competent critical review of it. I would expect such a review to not only go over the content of the article, but to provide a proper set of references to those who 'went before'. Gleick is right in his quoted observation in your note. Thanks for the opportunity. Sorry I can't give you a scholarly reply as requested. -- Andy MacKenzie

Continue to Socionomics

Scientific Controversy Introduction - Mandelbrot's Article - Prechter's Letter to the Editor
Prechter's Response - Follow-up Responses - Socionomics