Who will Win

[EleventhHour]

I thought you said he was suffering from dementia? Why is he worth listening to this time?

That audio sounds doctored... hardly proof of anything.

 

[Roughsoul1991]

SCOTUS disagrees with you.

I am thinking SCOTUS does not consider Newsmax, Fox News, OANN and Gateway Pundit as evidence.

Yet the evidence wasn't even presented in the court of law. Not even willing to see it. Which tells us they are scared and do not want to be canceled by the liberal mobs.

The light has uncovered so much in the last 4 years. It has uncovered much of what people have expected for decades. The evil has been brought to the light. Justice is coming. Either by the hands of man or God Himself. However, the will of God calls for it. God will place a leader and in history, it hasn't always been achieved by peace.

We will see which way the wind will blow and that will determine where we are going.

 

[Solemateleft]

You dozing off, @Solemateleft? I’m fixing to come across funnier in my future posts😎😁.

LoL, I don't have any issues with your humor or your opinion... I'm happy to have fought for your right for your freedom of speech...

My apologies if my emoji's have offended you - it really is un-characteristic of me to use any form of negative emoji or connotation in my responses and participation here and in life...

I just don't have a high tolerance for 'poor winners' or those who choose to play and win by their own rules... and then opt to rub it in, as if the ends somehow justified their means...

sorry...

I'm a sportsman and have raised/coached elite competitors at the highest levels - I'm a fan of instant replay to ensure the right and best man wins - regardless of which side of the competition I stand... I routinely call for instant replay in competition. If the instant replay shows that my player/team does not deserve the call - I am happy to congratulate the deserving victor...

Unfortunately, the atmosphere on this forum is an indicator and does not bode well for our future ability to heal and unify our country... It appears, regardless of outcome (because transparency - instant replay - is being denied) - we are on a path towards further division...

 

[Roughsoul1991]

Truckers planning a blockade of Atlanta???

People are furious. If this takes place, it has to make me wonder if a bigger plan is at play. This is a tactic of war. In the Revolution it was ships. In the Civil war, it was ships, trains, and roadblocks.

 

[posthuman]

sorry it took a bit, had to type it out in LaTeX to properly write the notation, but i've constructed a proof that there is no 'slowest convergent rate' :




so i can always pick an arbitrary n and make any sequence converge arbitrarily slower.

the implied definition of 'most irrational' being used in the bogus things @cv5 scoured the internet for, trying to save face and make his weird insult stick, reduces to 'slowest convergence rate' -- this is essentially what the difference between the actual number & sums of truncated expansions is measuring.
a slow convergence rate is driven by the ration between consecutive terms being close to 1. i've shown that i can take any convergent series and transform it into an equivalent one with a slower rate of convergence, therefore using the silly definition of 'most irrational' i can create an infinite series for any number, rational or not, which converges at an even slower rate than any given convergence rate.

i.e. using this definition i can make any rational number more irrational than any irrational number.
QED it's a poor, unworkable definition.

not that it matters because even without this proof there are infinite multiples of φ having exactly the same convergence rate as the famous 'pretty-when-you-write-it-down' infinite series representation he had copy-pasted, so there's no unique 'slowest-to-converge'

worth noting that for any real number there are an infinite number of infinite sequences that converge to that number. can provide proof if need be, but ya ought to be able to prove that yourself before you go around trying to insult or impress people with oblique references to math.



AMA prints all kinds of things from undergraduate & graduate math students. heck i've been published in it myself, years ago, proving that mathematicians are inherently unfair because the optimal way to slice a pizza for 7 hungry people to share is to actually only slice it into only 6 pieces. so maybe you can see that they don't always have the best rationale or certainly the most accurate article titles.
AMA articles are not above reproach just by virtue of being in an AMA printing -- @cv5 you ought to discard your partiality; according to the Bible it makes you an unjust judge ((James 2:4)). if you want to prove that there is an unique 'most irrational number' you need to do the math. appeals to celebrity or notoriety are worthless when it comes to the establishing of the truth.

 

[Roughsoul1991]

It appears the court is looking for a case withing the States Jurisdiction, Voting Resident, Business,Etc

Texas has no interest in another States election process?

There are many cases pending, we will see how things go, this was a big shock.

Will the US Supreme Court deny future cases pending, such as LinWood's on the docket to be heard?

Will the Republican controlled Legislature's in these States, allow the fraudulent electors to move forward?

Will the US Senate and House have at least one objection to the electors to start debate?

Will The Senate Approve The Electors After Debate?

Texas Tribune:
Quote Article: In a few brief sentences, the high court said it would not consider the case for procedural reasons, because Texas lacked standing to bring it.
"Texas has not demonstrated a judicially cognizable interest in the manner in which another State conducts its elections," the court wrote in an unsigned ruling Friday evening.

Sounds like Texas should revise and send it back.

Here is one who will object

https://m.washingtontimes.com/news/2020/dec/3/mo-brooks-alabama-will-object-bidens-electoral-col/

 

[Johnjo]

LoL, I don't have any issues with your humor or your opinion... I'm happy to have fought for your right for your freedom of speech...

My apologies if my emoji's have offended you - it really is un-characteristic of me to use any form of negative emoji or connotation in my responses and participation here and in life...

I just don't have a high tolerance for 'poor winners' or those who choose to play and win by their own rules... and then opt to rub it in, as if the ends somehow justified their means...

sorry...

I'm a sportsman and have raised/coached elite competitors at the highest levels - I'm a fan of instant replay to ensure the right and best man wins - regardless of which side of the competition I stand... I routinely call for instant replay in competition. If the instant replay shows that my player/team does not deserve the call - I am happy to congratulate the deserving victor...

Unfortunately, the atmosphere on this forum is an indicator and does not bode well for our future ability to heal and unify our country... It appears, regardless of outcome (because transparency - instant replay - is being denied) - we are on a path towards further division...

Thanks for your service and God bless you for doing that.

I’m still fighting for all y’all’s freedom and right to speech. The good Lord provided me with the ability to serve my country in the armed forces.

I pray that the division will subside and that we can all unite in bringing the country to glory.

 

[EleventhHour]

sorry it took a bit, had to type it out in LaTeX to properly write the notation, but i've constructed a proof that there is no 'slowest convergent rate' :


View attachment 223474

so i can always pick an arbitrary n and make any sequence converge arbitrarily slower.

the implied definition of 'most irrational' being used in the bogus things @cv5 scoured the internet for, trying to save face and make his weird insult stick, reduces to 'slowest convergence rate' -- this is essentially what the difference between the actual number & sums of truncated expansions is measuring.
a slow convergence rate is driven by the ration between consecutive terms being close to 1. i've shown that i can take any convergent series and transform it into an equivalent one with a slower rate of convergence, therefore using the silly definition of 'most irrational' i can create an infinite series for any number, rational or not, which converges at an even slower rate than any given convergence rate.

i.e. using this definition i can make any rational number more irrational than any irrational number.
QED it's a poor, unworkable definition.

not that it matters because even without this proof there are infinite multiples of φ having exactly the same convergence rate as the famous 'pretty-when-you-write-it-down' infinite series representation he had copy-pasted, so there's no unique 'slowest-to-converge'

worth noting that for any real number there are an infinite number of infinite sequences that converge to that number. can provide proof if need be, but ya ought to be able to prove that yourself before you go around trying to insult or impress people with oblique references to math.



AMA prints all kinds of things from undergraduate & graduate math students. heck i've been published in it myself, years ago, proving that mathematicians are inherently unfair because the optimal way to slice a pizza for 7 hungry people to share is to actually only slice it into only 6 pieces. so maybe you can see that they don't always have the best rationale or certainly the most accurate article titles.
AMA articles are not above reproach just by virtue of being in an AMA printing -- @cv5 you ought to discard your partiality; according to the Bible it makes you an unjust judge ((James 2:4)). if you want to prove that there is an unique 'most irrational number' you need to do the math. appeals to celebrity or notoriety are worthless when it comes to the establishing of the truth.

Not really sure if people speak about "pure mathematics" as an area in math anymore....but I do know mechanical, civil engineers do not do much in the area of pure math it tends to be applied math and physics.

Looks kinda bad for his followers though

 

[posthuman]

Sounds like Texas should revise and send it back.

changing their phrasing is not going to give one state the right to tell another state how to run its elections, and certainly not going to convince an impartial court to completely disenfranchise an entire state's populace from their right to representation.

it doesn't matter how you say it; California doesn't have a right to delete all the votes in Florida.

 

[Roughsoul1991]

changing their phrasing is not going to give one state the right to tell another state how to run its elections, and certainly not going to convince an impartial court to completely disenfranchise an entire state's populace from their right to representation.

it doesn't matter how you say it; California doesn't have a right to delete all the votes in Florida.

Actually, if the state wanted to participate in a fair election so that their best interests had a fair chance and other states broke the law in the election, then yes the state's legal representation has been tarnished.

 

[cv5]

I read a few conservative legal scholars on the issue?

It's dangerous for setting future precedence, if this was allowed, every futyre Senate, House, Presedential election, in the entire country would be subjected to this ruling

I believe the parties with a direct interest, a candidate, president, President Trump?

It's my opinion, and those that I read up on, SCOTUS didnt want to set future precedence?

The election challenge isnt dead by no means, this was a quick route to SCOTUS

The situation was basically contract law. I believe there was standing and I believe there was a ton of precedent. Unfortunately there was a total lack of backbone and guts. I think a ruling would've helped the Republic not hurt it.

 

[PennEd]

right after election night, i gave a 35% chance of the election getting overturned. and that was being optimistic.

well, it just dropped to a 15% chance. and that is being VERY optimistic.

Right after the election I gave 15% chance of secession by one or more states.

Now I give it a 35% chance.


The dynamic remains the same. You either fight for freedom now, or you live under the Marxist tyranny of the Democrats.

I’m amazed at how many fairly mainstream conservatives are mentioning the possibility of secession. I’m amazed that it has taken this long.

For many years it has been apparent that Democrats hate America and the Constitution. So if the fraudulent election stands, there is nothing left but to fight or submit to Marxist Democrat tyranny. It’s truly that simple.

I think there are more than enough decent Americans that realize this truth.

 

[cv5]

"Listen to this video because THIS is what’s about to happen!!"
Don't worry just Twitter rumors. Of course in this case it is warranted.....no doubt about it.

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1337567270697127940

 

[Roughsoul1991]

Right after the election I gave 15% chance of secession by one or more states.

Now I give it a 35% chance.


The dynamic remains the same. You either fight for freedom now, or you live under the Marxist tyranny of the Democrats.

I’m amazed at how many fairly mainstream conservatives are mentioning the possibility of secession. I’m amazed that it has taken this long.

For many years it has been apparent that Democrats hate America and the Constitution. So if the fraudulent election stands, there is nothing left but to fight or submit to Marxist Democrat tyranny. It’s truly that simple.

I think there are more than enough decent Americans that realize this truth.

Honestly, if anything on that scale occurs it should be all or nothing. Not just to succeed but to take control to save the United States. To keep them united. Or else like the Federalist Papers warned, we would just end up in constant wars with the states around us. We would easily become weaker than China and Russia if our economy and country even survived.

 

[Truth7t7]

The situation was basically contract law. I believe there was standing and I believe there was a ton of precedent. Unfortunately there was a total lack of backbone and guts. I think a ruling would've helped the Republic not hurt it.

I was hoping to see a ruling, just looking at it from a citizens standpoint?

If these states violated constitutional law, (They Did) why wouldn't it be directly related to all Americans?

Stealing Senate seats for a majority, also the presidency?

It's my opinion it directly affects all Americans?

SCOTUS believes it's not the outsider States business?

 

[Truth7t7]

Honestly, if anything on that scale occurs it should be all or nothing. Not just to succeed but to take control to save the United States. To keep them united. Or else like the Federalist Papers warned, we would just end up in constant wars with the states around us. We would easily become weaker than China and Russia if our economy and country even survived.

I agree, all or nothing!

Your analysis is spot on, California, Oregon, Washington, all liberal States would control the western waterfront, not good?

Borders and war between States?

It's not done yet, once it passes Jan 6th its closing in, hopefully LinWoods case will be heard, it's on the docket?

Biden will never be my president, I'm with the 80% of conservative voters, it was in your face criminal fraud!

 

[cv5]

People are furious. If this takes place, it has to make me wonder if a bigger plan is at play. This is a tactic of war. In the Revolution it was ships. In the Civil war, it was ships, trains, and roadblocks.

You know I have been thinking. And if Trump does concede....instead of being the most loved president of the modern age he would instantaneously become the most hated. There is plenty of reason to believe that there was abundant opportunity to prevent the election fraud before it happened. The 2018 EO makes this clear.

So given what we know about Donald Trump's psychological profile do you think that he's going to allow himself to be considered a sell-out, a coward or even perhaps a co-conspirator? A modern day Benedict Arnold?

Time will tell. Given the magnitude of the crisis I do not have any problem with him doing what Abraham Lincoln had to do. Go for it. Its gonna be healthier for the country in the long run. The cancer and rot has to be burned out.

 

[cv5]

Right after the election I gave 15% chance of secession by one or more states.

Now I give it a 35% chance.


The dynamic remains the same. You either fight for freedom now, or you live under the Marxist tyranny of the Democrats.

I’m amazed at how many fairly mainstream conservatives are mentioning the possibility of secession. I’m amazed that it has taken this long.

For many years it has been apparent that Democrats hate America and the Constitution. So if the fraudulent election stands, there is nothing left but to fight or submit to Marxist Democrat tyranny. It’s truly that simple.

I think there are more than enough decent Americans that realize this truth.

All of this madness was caused by a few pathetic counties/cities in some mostly red states.
These locations were hotbeds of Marxist insurrection. Clearly. And massive criminal election fraud.

So should the rest of America be held hostage by a bunch of hoodlums and gangsters living in the Dem commie gulag cities?

Furthermore this was allowed to happen by corrupt police and FBI and DOJ who didn't do their jobs. On purpose.

Is the rest of the country to suffer the collective ignominy of their incompetence, sloth and stupidity?

Of course not. It's time for Americans to arise and demand justice. NOW. TODAY. Leave them no choice but to do the proper and right thing which is to correct and undo the greatest the most massive election fraud in the history of the United States.

 

[Truth7t7]

You know I have been thinking. And if Trump does concede....instead of being the most loved president of the modern age he would instantaneously become the most hated. There is plenty of reason to believe that there was abundant opportunity to prevent the election fraud before it happened. The 2018 EO makes this clear.

So given what we know about Donald Trump's psychological profile do you think that he's going to allow himself to be considered a sell-out, a coward or even perhaps a co-conspirator? A modern day Benedict Arnold?

Time will tell. Given the magnitude of the crisis I do not have any problem with him doing what Abraham Lincoln had to do. Go for it. Its gonna be healthier for the country in the long run. The cancer and rot has to be burned out.

Could it come to civil war, the situation pending is no joking matter?

Monday will be a telling time also, Dec 14th, States pick electors?

Will these States in question, all republican controlled pick the democratic electors?

 

[cv5]

sorry it took a bit, had to type it out in LaTeX to properly write the notation, but i've constructed a proof that there is no 'slowest convergent rate' :


View attachment 223474

so i can always pick an arbitrary n and make any sequence converge arbitrarily slower.

the implied definition of 'most irrational' being used in the bogus things @cv5 scoured the internet for, trying to save face and make his weird insult stick, reduces to 'slowest convergence rate' -- this is essentially what the difference between the actual number & sums of truncated expansions is measuring.
a slow convergence rate is driven by the ration between consecutive terms being close to 1. i've shown that i can take any convergent series and transform it into an equivalent one with a slower rate of convergence, therefore using the silly definition of 'most irrational' i can create an infinite series for any number, rational or not, which converges at an even slower rate than any given convergence rate.

i.e. using this definition i can make any rational number more irrational than any irrational number.
QED it's a poor, unworkable definition.

not that it matters because even without this proof there are infinite multiples of φ having exactly the same convergence rate as the famous 'pretty-when-you-write-it-down' infinite series representation he had copy-pasted, so there's no unique 'slowest-to-converge'

worth noting that for any real number there are an infinite number of infinite sequences that converge to that number. can provide proof if need be, but ya ought to be able to prove that yourself before you go around trying to insult or impress people with oblique references to math.



AMA prints all kinds of things from undergraduate & graduate math students. heck i've been published in it myself, years ago, proving that mathematicians are inherently unfair because the optimal way to slice a pizza for 7 hungry people to share is to actually only slice it into only 6 pieces. so maybe you can see that they don't always have the best rationale or certainly the most accurate article titles.
AMA articles are not above reproach just by virtue of being in an AMA printing -- @cv5 you ought to discard your partiality; according to the Bible it makes you an unjust judge ((James 2:4)). if you want to prove that there is an unique 'most irrational number' you need to do the math. appeals to celebrity or notoriety are worthless when it comes to the establishing of the truth.

Truly you are hopeless. The dumbest smart guy in the room. The proof I provided was beyond refutation. Quite frankly it's really not that complicated. You just don't get it. Or won't admit it.