A mathematical proof of why you should vote for Hillary Clinton

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.

No. See my response where I did the Trump analysis. (It is not the same because f_Trump(0) < < f_Hillary(0).)

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: 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.

I will highlight in red the key wrong sentences in this.

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.

You removed the part that is clearly not true. So you know your post is fraudulent. Some would ban you for that.

Let me explain in English, since I am not sure you understand math. If Trump does a really bad job, like say he nukes Russia, or kicked out all non-whites, that is not good and would not make America happy. Women would NOT be happy if he had a nuclear war. Nope. That would be bad. You just don't have the strange benefit you get if Hillary backfires. I can't see her doing worse than getting impeached. She is on the edge for that as is.

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.

Let me give you my opinion on your calculations......
Nonsense.

a reply to: confusedbutnotidiot

WHOOOO OOOS SSSSH! Right over my head! How I wish math and I got along well enough to understand each other because I can truthfully relate to the description your handle would imply for me! Very interesting concept though....

👏 👍 !!!

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.

If you are right, then that is a flaw in the proof. I indeed assumed that the probability of a nuclear apocalypse is higher with Trump. This is based upon "several" posts by others to this effect. Example: www.businessinsider.com... . I said "several." For up to 58 million others, see www.google.com... .





Here is a quote from an article in your favor, somewhat, but not really:

"When given a choice, almost half of respondents (46 percent) say they trust Clinton rather than Trump to handle the country’s nuclear arms. Less than one-third of voters (31 percent) say they trust Trump with nuclear weapons, while 23 percent don’t know or have no opinion."

Anyway that is a fair critique.

a reply to: confusedbutnotidiot

Again weighted by your opinion.

originally posted by: jappee
a reply to: confusedbutnotidiot

Again weighted by your opinion.

I don't understand what you wrote.

How many Hillary voters are doing this right now?

originally posted by: beeeyotch
If Hillary wins I make way more money, if Trump wins ill be happier. Im optimistic

But one of the assumptions is that you are not voting for yourself but for the happiest citizens. If I did a personal analysis for each specific voter, it would have to include 7 billion different cases, and I'm not sure ATS would allow such a long post. I would get banned here for sure.

I will give you 5 million dollars if you vote for Trump to the charity of your choice, intercity school- whatever.

originally posted by: LostThePlot
How many Hillary voters are doing this right now?

Hillary and Trump supporters both should be doing that. I could not live with myself supporting either candidate. Absolutely disgusting. The real deplorables are both candidates and our entire government.

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.

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.

Ahh. Brilliant point. I didn't get it the first read. Right, Hillay is saying that. How do I include a picture? It does not allow me to upload a file.

Ok, but I am going to change my argument. I now think I was incorrect about who nuclear war would be with. The odds are under 1/9 that it would be with Russia. The cold war is over. It would probably be with a country who got nucs recently: Pakistan, China, France, North Korea, India, or Israel. So Trump decreases odds of nuclear war with Russia? Ok, what about odds of war with China? Have you heard what he has said about China?

I have to agree with the pundits and the public on this issue of who is less likely to need to hit any red buttons or phones. Firstly, by definition Trump is offering real change, so the difference between the best and worst extreme cases should be higher than Hillary the establishment/Manchurian candidate.

Also, there is this thing. Nobody has said it so here goes. If Trump is really right, the system is rigged. That is what he always says. But, if it is really 100% rigged, "they" would prohibit him from making any real changes in the world global elite system. In that case, Trump would not be "allowed" to be elected, since that would also be rigged. Indeed, China might actually serve as a backup to prohibit Trump from gaining power in case by accident he magically got elected. What I am saying is that, logically, if if Trump is really right, China *might* (and this is a YUGE might) actually nuke us if Trump got elected just to stop him.

So I have to agree with the establishment. Odds of nuclear war are higher than with Hillary Kaine.

I think he forgot to carry the 1.

lol