It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Help ATS via PayPal:
learn more

A mathematical proof of why you should vote for Hillary Clinton

page: 1
3
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 7 2016 @ 05:01 PM
link   
I'm banned at all other forums I think this could be posted to, so here goes a mathematical proof of why you should vote for hillary.

Disclaimer: this is meant for entertainment and is not meant to be a legit proof. Use your own brain to decide who to vote for tomorrow. I'm not necessarily voting for Hillary. This is just entertainment.

Decisions, including voting, should be based on anticipated results. You want to maximize your results. For instance, if you are running a company, you want to maximize profits. Likewise, in voting, you want to maximize something. Some would argue it should be selfish voting, maximization of personal pleasure or something. That is debatable. I'm going to make a ton of assumptions now to oversimplify. Again, this is for entertainment only.

Let us actually try to maximize the overall happiness of society in America in deciding who to vote for. Let us assume f(x,y,z,...) is this multivariate function that gives this future average happiness of America of as a function of many variables. But which variables? Good question. One variable, probably the most important, is how well a candidate ends up doing. We will call this variable x. We might assume if a candidate does well, i.e., x is high, the happiness f(x,...) will also be high. If a candidate ends upon doing poorly, we might assume that the happiness of society will be low. But we don't know. So we can just generalize using math. To oversimpliy, we will focus on just the main variables. So we can drop y,z, etc. and now we just have f(x) to worry about. We need to analyize this function. There will be another function for Trump, but if our analysis of f_hillary(x) somehow gives the answer we can stop there. (I will drop the _hillary subscript for now.)

To make things easy, let us assume f(x) is a smooth function, like f(x)=a+b*x^2+c*x^3+d*cos(x). That is just an example. If so, we can do a Taylor expansion, so it approximates to f(x)=a'+b'*x. Again, we are just being simple and crude. Not exact. Then we can utilize superposition and just do the boundary condition cases where x is maximum and minimum. en.wikipedia.org... . After all, Hillary's tenure, once she is elected, will be somewhere between really bad and really good.

Let's analyze those two boundary cases in turn. Reality will fall somewhere between these two cases, and will be a superposition of those outcomes. This is equivalent to linear regression.

Ok, the worst case, let us call it the x=0 case: Hillary ends up being worst possible president. Ok, so she will get impeached, and we will have Tim Kaine as the president. Not much lost, since she will get impeached. But now 50% of the population who felt perhaps enslaved by men for over 200 years, i.e., the women, will be happier, knowing they are actually free. So women are happy. Men, meanwhile, will not have to deal with some mean-ish women who sort of hate all men just because anymore. Almost everyone will be happier overall. Yes, some people will not be happier, like perhaps transgenders, who knows, but I'm focused on the vast majority of subpopulations. So America overall will be very happy in that case. Far happier than any reasonable expectation for another outcome, so f(0)=1, as in the probability that you would vote for her is 100% if you know she does a really horrible job. Yes, it is very ironic, but that is the mathematical conclusion for that hypothetical case.

Now for the best case, let us call it x=1 case: Hillary does an outstanding job, is the new jfk. Here f(1)=1 because one made the right decision voting for her. After all she does the best possible job, by definition.

So summarize, In either of those two extreme cases, the right decision is voting for hillary. So we have f(0)=1 and f(1)=1.

Recall f(x)=a'+b'x. The only a' and b' that fit this function are a'=1 and b'=0. f(x)=1 !

What does this mean in words? Another way of looking at this is f(x)=
x×(you made the right decision voting for hillary) + (1-x)×(you made the right decision voting for hillary), where 0 < = x < = 1.

If x is not 0 or 1, that is your indefensible middle ground. But, select any value of x you want. You will still find you made the right decision voting for her. Since f(x)=1.

Since this analysis of just Hillary's performance is dispositive, we don't need to analyze the Trump multivariate function. This post is long enough anyway.
edit on 7-11-2016 by confusedbutnotidiot because: grammar

edit on 7-11-2016 by confusedbutnotidiot because: grammar and length

edit on 7-11-2016 by confusedbutnotidiot because: fixing escape codes that apparently were inside the less than equal equation




posted on Nov, 7 2016 @ 05:05 PM
link   
SO essentially the same math proves why you should be voting for Trump with the same results, right?



posted on Nov, 7 2016 @ 05:06 PM
link   
a reply to: confusedbutnotidiot




edit on 7-11-2016 by watchitburn because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 7 2016 @ 05:09 PM
link   
Watchitburn, I fixed the escape code missing part of the post issue. Perhaps that was why you thought it was so irrational.
edit on 7-11-2016 by confusedbutnotidiot because: (no reason given)
p.s. That is a great clip. Very enjoyable. I hope you don't mean it!
edit on 7-11-2016 by confusedbutnotidiot because: Named person I was responding to.



posted on Nov, 7 2016 @ 05:10 PM
link   
I have my own formula.

Take the number of times she has lied, add the number of times she has flip flopped, divide that into the number of times she has spoken and then multiply that by 0 and you end up with the number of times I trust what comes out of her mouth.

Yours is impressive(I guess) but mine is far easier.
edit on 7-11-2016 by In4ormant because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 7 2016 @ 05:10 PM
link   
Opening with 'I get banned everywhere I go with my voodoo mathematics' probably isn't the best way to launch the seminar.



posted on Nov, 7 2016 @ 05:18 PM
link   

originally posted by: IgnoranceIsntBlisss
Opening with 'I get banned everywhere I go with my voodoo mathematics' probably isn't the best way to launch the seminar.


I probably wasn't banned for math. (They don't ever really tell you why.)



posted on Nov, 7 2016 @ 05:23 PM
link   

originally posted by: jappee
SO essentially the same math proves why you should be voting for Trump with the same results, right?


No. I didn't show it but I don't mind. It is only a little more work. Only one of the two x_Trump=0 and x_Trump=1 cases would yield f_Trump=1. So it would be a lower function unless x_Trump=1 for Trump, assuming f_Trump(1)=1 and f_Trump(x_Trump < 1) < 1, which is probably reasonable. So, in words, unless Trump does the best possible, Hillary is who you should vote for, regardless of how well she does. Since the probability that he does the best possible is infinitesimal, assuming a normal distribution, it is impossible that voting for Trump would maximize the happiness of America.
edit on 7-11-2016 by confusedbutnotidiot because: removed escape codes

edit on 7-11-2016 by confusedbutnotidiot because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 7 2016 @ 05:23 PM
link   
Too late. I already wasted my vote on Trump. I did the same thing with Perot and Nader. It felt great though. If I voted for her I would feel like vomit that I ate from from another Hillary voter vomiting vomit they ate from another Hillary voter.



posted on Nov, 7 2016 @ 05:34 PM
link   

originally posted by: LifeMode
Too late. I already wasted my vote on Trump. I did the same thing with Perot and Nader. It felt great though. If I voted for her I would feel like vomit that I ate from from another Hillary voter vomiting vomit they ate from another Hillary voter.



How do you really feel?



posted on Nov, 7 2016 @ 05:37 PM
link   
Not only NO . HELL NO on voting for that treasonous criminal .



posted on Nov, 7 2016 @ 05:38 PM
link   
I can give everyone mathmatical proof of why not to vote for CLinton.

Look in your wallet right now.

She wins your ALL going to have ALOT less green stuff in it.



posted on Nov, 7 2016 @ 05:39 PM
link   
a reply to: confusedbutnotidiot

And if you switch Hillary with Trump the equations would result in trump being the "mathematical" choice. I think you've weighted the variable "Clinton" from your own opinion of her. Because if you replace their names with candidate A and candidate B, and again switch/replace them (one candidate is as good as any other right?) They nullify each other again. My math-fu is rusty, maybe someone else can chime in.



posted on Nov, 7 2016 @ 05:39 PM
link   
a reply to: confusedbutnotidiot

I would guess supporting a criminal and a criminal enterprise could get one banned on forums....



posted on Nov, 7 2016 @ 05:40 PM
link   

originally posted by: In4ormant

originally posted by: LifeMode
Too late. I already wasted my vote on Trump. I did the same thing with Perot and Nader. It felt great though. If I voted for her I would feel like vomit that I ate from from another Hillary voter vomiting vomit they ate from another Hillary voter.



How do you really feel?


Effin Great!!! Voted for Trump, going for a run tonight about 4.5 miles, cook some dinner to enjoy with my beautiful wife. Only going to get better tomorrow. Obama is GONE.



posted on Nov, 7 2016 @ 05:42 PM
link   

originally posted by: LifeMode

originally posted by: In4ormant

originally posted by: LifeMode
Too late. I already wasted my vote on Trump. I did the same thing with Perot and Nader. It felt great though. If I voted for her I would feel like vomit that I ate from from another Hillary voter vomiting vomit they ate from another Hillary voter.



How do you really feel?


Effin Great!!! Voted for Trump, going for a run tonight about 4.5 miles, cook some dinner to enjoy with my beautiful wife. Only going to get better tomorrow. Obama is GONE.


Sounds like life us good regardless of tomorrow. Good on ya



posted on Nov, 7 2016 @ 05:43 PM
link   
a reply to: confusedbutnotidiot

If you need this much math to vote for Hillary then something is very wrong.



posted on Nov, 7 2016 @ 05:45 PM
link   
I actually found this very entertaining in an intelligent way.

Kudos OP.

I look forward to this type of thought process being utilized with other subjects after this whole debacle is over with.



posted on Nov, 7 2016 @ 05:45 PM
link   
I've come to the decision to support both candidates. They are both what America needs! Either one will run this country into the ground and possibly spark the people into the revolution that I believe it needs. So to put it bluntly...I'm with you fellars!




posted on Nov, 7 2016 @ 05:56 PM
link   
If Hillary wins I make way more money, if Trump wins ill be happier. Im optimistic
edit on 7-11-2016 by beeeyotch because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
3
<<   2 >>

log in

join