CDZ Fellow USMB Communists, Come Debate Me on Euler's Sum of the Inverse Squares and the Distribution of Totatives and GA/PA/MI's election results

[The2ndAmendment]

Two GIANT holes.

1. Votes were hand counted twice in GA so whatever pattern you assign to randomness is a lesson in random numbers
2. Silver bullets kill werewolves not vampires. If you can’t get even the basics right off the bat why would anyone listen to this drivel?

Ok, please explain your theory on why election results should not be beholden to the distribution of prime numbers and irreducible fractions.

If you explain why 4 eyeballs that looked at each ballot and counted the same number as a machine indicates the machine counted it or reported irregularly. One can find random patterns in a subset of selected data looked at all the time.

Again:
Please explain your theory on why election results should not be beholden to the distribution of prime numbers and irreducible fractions?

 

[The2ndAmendment]

Debating pure mathematics is fine. Trying to use those mathematical arguments where the election results are concerned makes less sense.

The 2020 elections were different than any previous elections for a number of reason. Most notably, the response to the pandemic.

What does the pandemic have to do with the distribution of prime numbers?

What do prime numbers have to do with the election results in GA, PA and MI?

And no, I am not going to watch a 36 minute video.

Let A = Trump's votes at a precinct; Let B = Total Number of Votes.

Let the ratio A/B be the Trump to Total Ratio.

The Laws of Geometry, in accordance to Euler's 1735 Theorem, demand a rapid convergence of the count of irreducible ratios, such that 30.39% of all of those ratios must be irreducible fractions, such as 17:101; 25:48, etc.

The video is pretty straightforward, and won't take that much time for you to watch,

 

[citygator]

Two GIANT holes.

1. Votes were hand counted twice in GA so whatever pattern you assign to randomness is a lesson in random numbers
2. Silver bullets kill werewolves not vampires. If you can’t get even the basics right off the bat why would anyone listen to this drivel?

Ok, please explain your theory on why election results should not be beholden to the distribution of prime numbers and irreducible fractions.

If you explain why 4 eyeballs that looked at each ballot and counted the same number as a machine indicates the machine counted it or reported irregularly. One can find random patterns in a subset of selected data looked at all the time.

Again:
Please explain your theory on why election results should not be beholden to the distribution of prime numbers and irreducible fractions?

You do understand the concept of probability right?

Now, the numbers are what they are.. as verified by eyeballs. So you need to consider that you don’t understand probability.

 

[The2ndAmendment]

Two GIANT holes.

1. Votes were hand counted twice in GA so whatever pattern you assign to randomness is a lesson in random numbers
2. Silver bullets kill werewolves not vampires. If you can’t get even the basics right off the bat why would anyone listen to this drivel?

Ok, please explain your theory on why election results should not be beholden to the distribution of prime numbers and irreducible fractions.

If you explain why 4 eyeballs that looked at each ballot and counted the same number as a machine indicates the machine counted it or reported irregularly. One can find random patterns in a subset of selected data looked at all the time.

Again:
Please explain your theory on why election results should not be beholden to the distribution of prime numbers and irreducible fractions?

You do understand the concept of probability right?

Now, the numbers are what they are.. as verified by eyeballs. So you need to consider that you don’t understand probability.

Yes, Euler's 1735 theorem demands that a natural set of data will contain 30.39% of ratios for Candidate vs Total to be irreducible. That's probability.

Now please explain your theory as to why a sample of 2499 precincts in Philly/Allegheny, 1069 precincts in Atlanta and 4300 precincts in Wayne, Macomb, Kent, Oakland and Kalamazoo don't conform to the expected distribution, while precincts in NYC, LA and Austin/Houston, the entire State of Iowa and Maine do.

I'll give an honorable mention to Mitch McConnell in Kentucky, all of his opponent's ratios failed statewide to conform to expected probabilities, implying his team did something very fishy to retain to his seat.

Also, why do the Bernie Sander ratios fail to conform in the primaries? I analyzed that too.

Why do Biden's ratios + 3rd party conform to the expected distribution in Philly, Atlanta and MI, but Trump's ratios failed catastrophically?

 

[konradv]

Two GIANT holes.

1. Votes were hand counted twice in GA so whatever pattern you assign to randomness is a lesson in random numbers
2. Silver bullets kill werewolves not vampires. If you can’t get even the basics right off the bat why would anyone listen to this drivel?

Ok, please explain your theory on why election results should not be beholden to the distribution of prime numbers and irreducible fractions.

If you explain why 4 eyeballs that looked at each ballot and counted the same number as a machine indicates the machine counted it or reported irregularly. One can find random patterns in a subset of selected data looked at all the time.

Again:
Please explain your theory on why election results should not be beholden to the distribution of prime numbers and irreducible fractions?

You do understand the concept of probability right?

Now, the numbers are what they are.. as verified by eyeballs. So you need to consider that you don’t understand probability.

Yes, Euler's 1735 theorem demands that a natural set of data will contain 30.39% of ratios for Candidate vs Total to be irreducible. That's probability.

Now please explain your theory as to why a sample of 2499 precincts in Philly/Allegheny, 1069 precincts in Atlanta and 4300 precincts in Wayne, Macomb, Kent, Oakland and Kalamazoo don't conform to the expected distribution, while precincts in NYC, LA and Austin/Houston, the entire State of Iowa and Maine do.

I'll give an honorable mention to Mitch McConnell in Kentucky, all of his opponent's ratios failed statewide to conform to expected probabilities, implying his team did something very fishy to retain to his seat.

Also, why do the Bernie Sander ratios fail to conform in the primaries? I analyzed that too.

Why do Biden's ratios + 3rd party conform to the expected distribution in Philly, Atlanta and MI, but Trump's ratios failed catastrophically?

Most people aren’t familiar with statistical theory making it easier to construct an election steal lie.

 

[Tommy Tainant]

Any credible evidence should have been presented in any of the 60+ court cases. How do those numbers compute ?

 

[The2ndAmendment]

Any credible evidence should have been presented in any of the 60+ court cases. How do those numbers compute ?

Well let's see, I was attacked by a molotov cocktail, and then in the hospital for arsenic poisoning, two days before I was to appear in court in Atlanta.

Any credible evidence should have been presented in any of the 60+ court cases. How do those numbers compute ?

No credible evidence was ever allowed to be presented due to "standing.".

 

[Tommy Tainant]

Any credible evidence should have been presented in any of the 60+ court cases. How do those numbers compute ?

Well let's see, I was attacked by a molotov cocktail, and then in the hospital for arsenic poisoning, two days before I was to appear in court in Atlanta.

Any credible evidence should have been presented in any of the 60+ court cases. How do those numbers compute ?

No credible evidence was ever allowed to be presented due to "standing.".

There is no credible evidence.

 

[The2ndAmendment]

Any credible evidence should have been presented in any of the 60+ court cases. How do those numbers compute ?

Well let's see, I was attacked by a molotov cocktail, and then in the hospital for arsenic poisoning, two days before I was to appear in court in Atlanta.

Any credible evidence should have been presented in any of the 60+ court cases. How do those numbers compute ?

No credible evidence was ever allowed to be presented due to "standing.".

There is no credible evidence.

So anyway, you want debate the video in the OP?

 

[citygator]

Two GIANT holes.

1. Votes were hand counted twice in GA so whatever pattern you assign to randomness is a lesson in random numbers
2. Silver bullets kill werewolves not vampires. If you can’t get even the basics right off the bat why would anyone listen to this drivel?

Ok, please explain your theory on why election results should not be beholden to the distribution of prime numbers and irreducible fractions.

If you explain why 4 eyeballs that looked at each ballot and counted the same number as a machine indicates the machine counted it or reported irregularly. One can find random patterns in a subset of selected data looked at all the time.

Again:
Please explain your theory on why election results should not be beholden to the distribution of prime numbers and irreducible fractions?

You do understand the concept of probability right?

Now, the numbers are what they are.. as verified by eyeballs. So you need to consider that you don’t understand probability.

Yes, Euler's 1735 theorem demands that a natural set of data will contain 30.39% of ratios for Candidate vs Total to be irreducible. That's probability.

Now please explain your theory as to why a sample of 2499 precincts in Philly/Allegheny, 1069 precincts in Atlanta and 4300 precincts in Wayne, Macomb, Kent, Oakland and Kalamazoo don't conform to the expected distribution, while precincts in NYC, LA and Austin/Houston, the entire State of Iowa and Maine do.

I'll give an honorable mention to Mitch McConnell in Kentucky, all of his opponent's ratios failed statewide to conform to expected probabilities, implying his team did something very fishy to retain to his seat.

Also, why do the Bernie Sander ratios fail to conform in the primaries? I analyzed that too.

Why do Biden's ratios + 3rd party conform to the expected distribution in Philly, Atlanta and MI, but Trump's ratios failed catastrophically?

There are any number of outcomes to any event. There are thousands of characteristics to a distribution and any number of them will be expected and unexpected chances. If you understand stats you understand that.

You should also understand that looking at the actual output is far superior than looking at what was predicted for one simple characteristic. If there’s no chance of rain and it rains guess what? It rained.

 

[Donald H]

I was pretty sure I had it figured out what was suitable for the CDZ and what was not, then along comes this thread and everything I thought I understood has to be thrown out again.

Communism? The left are communists?
Somebody could start a sister thread by just changing the 'communists' to extreme right Nazis.

 

[The2ndAmendment]

Two GIANT holes.

1. Votes were hand counted twice in GA so whatever pattern you assign to randomness is a lesson in random numbers
2. Silver bullets kill werewolves not vampires. If you can’t get even the basics right off the bat why would anyone listen to this drivel?

Ok, please explain your theory on why election results should not be beholden to the distribution of prime numbers and irreducible fractions.

If you explain why 4 eyeballs that looked at each ballot and counted the same number as a machine indicates the machine counted it or reported irregularly. One can find random patterns in a subset of selected data looked at all the time.

Again:
Please explain your theory on why election results should not be beholden to the distribution of prime numbers and irreducible fractions?

You do understand the concept of probability right?

Now, the numbers are what they are.. as verified by eyeballs. So you need to consider that you don’t understand probability.

Yes, Euler's 1735 theorem demands that a natural set of data will contain 30.39% of ratios for Candidate vs Total to be irreducible. That's probability.

Now please explain your theory as to why a sample of 2499 precincts in Philly/Allegheny, 1069 precincts in Atlanta and 4300 precincts in Wayne, Macomb, Kent, Oakland and Kalamazoo don't conform to the expected distribution, while precincts in NYC, LA and Austin/Houston, the entire State of Iowa and Maine do.

I'll give an honorable mention to Mitch McConnell in Kentucky, all of his opponent's ratios failed statewide to conform to expected probabilities, implying his team did something very fishy to retain to his seat.

Also, why do the Bernie Sander ratios fail to conform in the primaries? I analyzed that too.

Why do Biden's ratios + 3rd party conform to the expected distribution in Philly, Atlanta and MI, but Trump's ratios failed catastrophically?

There are any number of outcomes to any event. There are thousands of characteristics to a distribution and any number of them will be expected and unexpected chances. If you understand stats you understand that.

You should also understand that looking at the actual output is far superior than looking at what was predicted for one simple characteristic. If there’s no chance of rain and it rains guess what? It rained.

No.

This is GEOMETRY.

Watch the video, and then debate me.

Euler's 1735 theorem demands strict and immediate rapid convergence to 30.4% for any dataset.

 

[citygator]

Two GIANT holes.

1. Votes were hand counted twice in GA so whatever pattern you assign to randomness is a lesson in random numbers
2. Silver bullets kill werewolves not vampires. If you can’t get even the basics right off the bat why would anyone listen to this drivel?

Ok, please explain your theory on why election results should not be beholden to the distribution of prime numbers and irreducible fractions.

If you explain why 4 eyeballs that looked at each ballot and counted the same number as a machine indicates the machine counted it or reported irregularly. One can find random patterns in a subset of selected data looked at all the time.

Again:
Please explain your theory on why election results should not be beholden to the distribution of prime numbers and irreducible fractions?

You do understand the concept of probability right?

Now, the numbers are what they are.. as verified by eyeballs. So you need to consider that you don’t understand probability.

Yes, Euler's 1735 theorem demands that a natural set of data will contain 30.39% of ratios for Candidate vs Total to be irreducible. That's probability.

Now please explain your theory as to why a sample of 2499 precincts in Philly/Allegheny, 1069 precincts in Atlanta and 4300 precincts in Wayne, Macomb, Kent, Oakland and Kalamazoo don't conform to the expected distribution, while precincts in NYC, LA and Austin/Houston, the entire State of Iowa and Maine do.

I'll give an honorable mention to Mitch McConnell in Kentucky, all of his opponent's ratios failed statewide to conform to expected probabilities, implying his team did something very fishy to retain to his seat.

Also, why do the Bernie Sander ratios fail to conform in the primaries? I analyzed that too.

Why do Biden's ratios + 3rd party conform to the expected distribution in Philly, Atlanta and MI, but Trump's ratios failed catastrophically?

There are any number of outcomes to any event. There are thousands of characteristics to a distribution and any number of them will be expected and unexpected chances. If you understand stats you understand that.

You should also understand that looking at the actual output is far superior than looking at what was predicted for one simple characteristic. If there’s no chance of rain and it rains guess what? It rained.

No.

This is GEOMETRY.

Watch the video, and then debate me.

Euler's 1735 theorem demands strict and immediate rapid convergence to 30.4% for any dataset.

Behavior is probability.

 

[The2ndAmendment]

Two GIANT holes.

1. Votes were hand counted twice in GA so whatever pattern you assign to randomness is a lesson in random numbers
2. Silver bullets kill werewolves not vampires. If you can’t get even the basics right off the bat why would anyone listen to this drivel?

Ok, please explain your theory on why election results should not be beholden to the distribution of prime numbers and irreducible fractions.

If you explain why 4 eyeballs that looked at each ballot and counted the same number as a machine indicates the machine counted it or reported irregularly. One can find random patterns in a subset of selected data looked at all the time.

Again:
Please explain your theory on why election results should not be beholden to the distribution of prime numbers and irreducible fractions?

You do understand the concept of probability right?

Now, the numbers are what they are.. as verified by eyeballs. So you need to consider that you don’t understand probability.

Yes, Euler's 1735 theorem demands that a natural set of data will contain 30.39% of ratios for Candidate vs Total to be irreducible. That's probability.

Now please explain your theory as to why a sample of 2499 precincts in Philly/Allegheny, 1069 precincts in Atlanta and 4300 precincts in Wayne, Macomb, Kent, Oakland and Kalamazoo don't conform to the expected distribution, while precincts in NYC, LA and Austin/Houston, the entire State of Iowa and Maine do.

I'll give an honorable mention to Mitch McConnell in Kentucky, all of his opponent's ratios failed statewide to conform to expected probabilities, implying his team did something very fishy to retain to his seat.

Also, why do the Bernie Sander ratios fail to conform in the primaries? I analyzed that too.

Why do Biden's ratios + 3rd party conform to the expected distribution in Philly, Atlanta and MI, but Trump's ratios failed catastrophically?

There are any number of outcomes to any event. There are thousands of characteristics to a distribution and any number of them will be expected and unexpected chances. If you understand stats you understand that.

You should also understand that looking at the actual output is far superior than looking at what was predicted for one simple characteristic. If there’s no chance of rain and it rains guess what? It rained.

No.

This is GEOMETRY.

Watch the video, and then debate me.

Euler's 1735 theorem demands strict and immediate rapid convergence to 30.4% for any dataset.

Behavior is probability.

You're right, looks liek Bernie Sanders and Clinton's ratios in the Iowa Primary conformed to the laws geometry.

I'm still trying to understand why Trump's ratios in GA, PA and MI don't. Can you help me?

Bernie-Clinton — ImgBB (ibb.co)

 

[Donald H]

You're right, looks liek Bernie Sanders and Clinton's ratios in the Iowa Primary conformed to the laws geometry.

I'm still trying to understand why Trump's ratios in GA, PA and MI don't. Can you help me?

Bernie-Clinton — ImgBB (ibb.co)

Even if you were making some rational point, it's still much too complicated for the audience you're expecting it to reach.

Something much simpler to understand would be all the communists are denying Trump's freedom of speech. They'll buy that quickly and easily, and it will never enter their minds that Trump is being denied the right to incite violence through revolution.

Countries that truly value their freedom would have taken care of the threat of fascism very quickly.

 

[The2ndAmendment]

You're right, looks liek Bernie Sanders and Clinton's ratios in the Iowa Primary conformed to the laws geometry.

I'm still trying to understand why Trump's ratios in GA, PA and MI don't. Can you help me?

Bernie-Clinton — ImgBB (ibb.co)

Even if you were making some rational point, it's still much too complicated for the audience you're expecting it to reach.

Something much simpler to understand would be all the communists are denying Trump's freedom of speech. They'll buy that quickly and easily, and it will never enter their minds that Trump is being denied the right to incite violence through revolution.

Countries that truly value their freedom would have taken care of the threat of fascism very quickly.

It's a question concerning the density of irreducible fractions in a square, watch the video and you'll see how easy it is to understand.

 

[Dogmaphobe]

The 2020 elections were different than any previous elections for a number of reason. Most notably, the response to the pandemic.

Most notably that several battleground states all stopped counting in unison and with Trump in the lead and when they resumed, voila! , it was sleepy Joe time.

 

[Donald H]

Most notably that several battleground states all stopped counting in unison and with Trump in the lead and when they resumed, voila! , it was sleepy Joe time.

You're certainly on the record for having suggested there was cheating for Trump, on more than just this occasion.

Can you expand on your suspicions so as to make it more believable?

It's always seemed to me that the vote for Trump was counted first and then the big numbers for Biden came later. Do you think any proof for that exists but hasn't been offered up yet, due to all the turmoil?