Election Prediction (with math!) (773 hits)
Category: Politics -> Election 2004Rating: 0.91 on 18 reviews (Rate this item) (V)
Submitted by AwesomeJohnson (View user info) at 2004-10-19 10:32:40 EDT
196 of you read my hypothesis about using Scrabble letter values and math to predict hurricane destructiveness (http://www.ubersite.com/m/46648). Well, my friends, we all know that math is the language of nature, so I'm using math to save us all the trouble of driving to polling places and potentially choking on some sort of dry sugar-cookie-puck or have to stand in line with old people who will say things like "Now Truman...there was a President you could set your watch to." I have nothing specifically against Truman, or old people. Anyway, I've used the power of math to predict the outcome of the upcoming Presidential Election, so without further commentary:
User Reviews
Submitted by Jabba_the_Shit (user info) at 2004-10-28 09:47:58 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
AUTO--not earned-- -2.
Submitted by AwesomeJohnson (user info) at 2004-10-19 17:08:38 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
the application of this knows no bounds.
Submitted by Gnome (user info) at 2004-10-19 15:57:19 (#)
Ranking: 2
"blah blah blah randombigword blah blah"
etc...
Submitted by Gnome (user info) at 2004-10-19 15:57:19 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
"blah blah blah randombigword blah blah"
"no, no. blah blah biggerword blah blah. i'm clearly more of a nerd than you."
"you are not"
"yes i am"
"are not"
"am too"
"are not"
"am too"
"are not"
"am too"
~DING~
"thank you, this arguement is at an end."
Submitted by Zandy1123 (user info) at 2004-10-19 13:05:48 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
holy crap!
this: "No, I think you've been out-verbosed. See if I take the trachyotic disrythmic oscillator function, and modify the tangential tensor to account for the bipartite amplification of the initial value range, it clearly follow Euler's first rule of bullshit. Thevenin equivalents apply to electrical circuits."
was almost as hilarious as the post!
I wanna see matrices, dammit!!!
Submitted by Supreme_Overlord (user info) at 2004-10-19 12:53:47 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
I'm sorry Johnson, I did like the post actually. Just not the responses :p
A+, very good, 100%
Submitted by AwesomeJohnson (user info) at 2004-10-19 12:48:59 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
does nobody appreciate the rediculous use of math anymore? it's a joke! and in atonement for my linkwhorage, http://www.ubersite.com/m/48920
Submitted by Thereisnogod (user info) at 2004-10-19 12:40:31 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
loser
Submitted by Supreme_Overlord (user info) at 2004-10-19 12:24:01 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Since you used Gamma values, you only included the FORWARD transmission coefficient. You neglected the reverse (reflection) coefficient. Include that, and you'll see that it's an exact tie, 48,103,109 to 48,103,109. This is in excellent agreement with Kirchoff's laws. You can use a Thevenin equivalent and superposition and you get the same answer. Nice try though.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I'll admit it, I've been math-zinged.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No, I think you've been out-verbosed. See if I take the trachyotic disrythmic oscillator function, and modify the tangential tensor to account for the bipartite amplification of the initial value range, it clearly follow Euler's first rule of bullshit. Thevenin equivalents apply to electrical circuits.
Submitted by Monarch (user info) at 2004-10-19 12:14:37 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Submitted by DJMattB241 (user info) at 2004-10-19 11:02:30 (#)
Ranking: 2
<blank stare>
62!
-------------------------------
No Matt. 42.
That's ALWAYS the answer, you know that!
Submitted by smokymtcsw (user info) at 2004-10-19 12:10:50 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
kerry sucks almost as much as math. Thanks for linkwhoring though.
Submitted by Gnome (user info) at 2004-10-19 11:38:11 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
well deduced
Submitted by Adamdidit2u (user info) at 2004-10-19 11:35:08 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
I'll give you the plus two just for doing the math.
Submitted by DJMattB241 (user info) at 2004-10-19 11:02:30 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
<blank stare>
62!
Submitted by AwesomeJohnson (user info) at 2004-10-19 10:58:53 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Other elections? Live in the now, man!
Translation: uh, what other elections?
Translation Translation: I dunno.
Submitted by zakalwe (user info) at 2004-10-19 10:45:52 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Brilliant! And it came out with the right answer.
Does it work for previous elections?
Submitted by AwesomeJohnson (user info) at 2004-10-19 10:44:35 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
I'll admit it, I've been math-zinged.
Submitted by domenad (user info) at 2004-10-19 10:43:30 EDT (#)
Ranking: 1
Since you used Gamma values, you only included the FORWARD transmission coefficient. You neglected the reverse (reflection) coefficient. Include that, and you'll see that it's an exact tie, 48,103,109 to 48,103,109. This is in excellent agreement with Kirchoff's laws. You can use a Thevenin equivalent and superposition and you get the same answer. Nice try though.
Submitted by Vertigo (user info) at 2004-10-19 10:36:44 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
sorry just unimpressed My opinon Bush =( Kerry =(