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.
originally posted by: jappee
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.
originally posted by: confusedbutnotidiot
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 TRUMP.
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 TRUMP. This is just entertainment.
(edited out)
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 HILLARY, but if our analysis of f_trump(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, Trump'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: Trump ends up being worst possible president. (edited out) Far happier than any reasonable expectation for another outcome, so f(0)=1, as in the probability that you would vote for him is 100% if you know he 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: Trump does an outstanding job, is the new jfk. Here f(1)=1 because one made the right decision voting for him. After all he does the best possible job, by definition.
So summarize, In either of those two extreme cases, the right decision is voting for Trump. 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 trump) + (1-x)×(you made the right decision voting for trump), 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 him. Since f(x)=1.
Since this analysis of just Trump's performance is dispositive, we don't need to analyze the Hillary's multivariate function. This post is long enough anyway.
originally posted by: jappee
Here is Your post, with some fat removed and I just replaced the name Hillary with Trump, she and he etc. It's all your math and candidate A or candidate B should be equal.
originally posted by: jappee
Ok, the worst case, let us call it the x=0 case: Trump ends up being worst possible president. (edited out) Far happier than any reasonable expectation for another outcome, so f(0)=1, as in the probability that you would vote for him is 100% if you know he does a really horrible job. Yes, it is very ironic, but that is the mathematical conclusion for that hypothetical case.
originally posted by: GodEmperor
Your calculations are incorrect.
Worst possible scenario for Hillary Clinton is nuclear apocalypse, impeachment is somewhere in the middle.
Also, all happiness calculations = 0, only Hillary's happiness is a factor in gaining presidency.
originally posted by: jappee
a reply to: confusedbutnotidiot
Again weighted by your opinion.
originally posted by: beeeyotch
If Hillary wins I make way more money, if Trump wins ill be happier. Im optimistic
originally posted by: LostThePlot
How many Hillary voters are doing this right now?
originally posted by: GodEmperor
a reply to: confusedbutnotidiot
Ahh, I see where you have erred.
Trump is a friend of Putin, and less likely to start a nuclear war with Russia, or so say the democrats.