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