"Bilingual" math meets Ron Paul math

Forums: Science And Math
Email this Topic • Print this Page

In the middle of a discussion about why even though Ron Paul has no shot of winning, if he did he would end up being a good thing for the Democrats, I made this statement...

Quote:

McCain has probably a 40% chance of beating Clinton (a bit less if Obama is the nominee). Giulliani probably has a 30% shot ... Romney about 25% and the other Huckster guy about 10%....

I assure you it is not the Democrats who are suppressing Ron Paul's candidacy... he is the best thing for the Democrats (until, of course some right wing nut fulfills the promise of a third party).

This seemed like a reasonable analysis to me...

But wait a second.... the Ron Paul supporter said that this was mathematically impossible... well here is the quote

Quote:

LOL - I so wish I could bet on the fantastic odds quoted by Mr Brown-Munoz!

Total as calculated in his post is 105%. Plus the maximum 10% generously awarded in a previous post to Ron Paul makes 115%. Adding a few points for minor candidates, fees and commissions, and we're safely over 120%.

Bilingual education in arithmetic is to blame?!

Well beside the personal attack and the implication that people who speak Spanish can't do math, there is what is to me an amazing mathematical error in reasoning.

So what is right.... Ron Paul math (i.e. the sum of percentages in different hypothetical matchups can't add up to more than 100%)... or is "bilingual math" correct (i.e. the sum of percentages in different hypothetical matchups can be any value less than 100N where N is the number of matchups).

Hispanic math, or Ron Paul math.

Can someone explain (better than I) who is full of it.

((and they wonder why foreigners are "stealing" American jobs))

Topic Stats
Top Replies
Link to this Topic

Type: Discussion • Score: 0 • Views: 1,102 • Replies: 18

No top replies

Hispanironic math .... FTW!!!

0 Replies

I think I need you to clarify just exactly what you mean by somebody having an "N% chance" of beating someone else.

When you say, for example, that

Quote:

McCain has probably a 40% chance of beating Clinton

What is that supposed to mean?

Does it mean that on a scale of 0 (no chance at all of beating Clinton) to 100 (certain to beat her), you put McCain's chances at around 40, and Huckabee at around 10? (Generous, that last)

If that is so, then, of course, it is obvious to any rational person that the sum of percentages could be 100N where N is the number of matchups.

However, I don't feel very happy with the idea of using mathematical type language, percentages, etc, to lend a spurious air of rigour and respectability to, in short to dress up, what is, essentially, just guessing.

Unless you use a word like "roughly" or "about", 40% implies 2 figures of accuracy, and you have to say why it's 40 and not 39 or 41. If you didn't intend to imply that degree of accuracy, (and I don't see how you could justify it) why not just say "On a scale of zero to ten, I'd give McCain's chances a value of four"?

After all, elections are not decided by the laws of probability.

0 Replies

Well we've had creationism in the science section, ID in the science section, philosophy in the science section, now we have politics in the science section. Apparently when you've exhausted everyone else who wants to argue with you elsware you move to the science section. At least you can count on spendi for a reply here. I guess the term "moderator" has no meaning on A2K.

0 Replies

TCR is correct.... this post was in poor judgement

If there is a moderator around, I don't mind it being deleted.

0 Replies

To categorize this as politics is like categorizing as railroads a problem about trains leaving their stations and meeting at some to-be-determined time.

An obvious counterexample to the Ron Paul supporter can be found in certain dictatorships where the incumbent has a 100% chance of beating candidate A, a 100% chance of beating candidate B, etc.

0 Replies

Re: "Bilingual" math meets Ron Paul math

ebrown_p wrote:

In the middle of a discussion about why even though Ron Paul has no shot of winning, if he did he would end up being a good thing for the Democrats, I made this statement...

Quote:

McCain has probably a 40% chance of beating Clinton (a bit less if Obama is the nominee). Giulliani probably has a 30% shot ... Romney about 25% and the other Huckster guy about 10%....

I assure you it is not the Democrats who are suppressing Ron Paul's candidacy... he is the best thing for the Democrats (until, of course some right wing nut fulfills the promise of a third party).

This seemed like a reasonable analysis to me...

))

It is a reasonable analysis. Because it was and is assumed that the 100% was split among those cadidates that are worth including in the 100% breakup for practical puposes in debate.

the extra 5% does not exist because Brown said "probably" and "about" which means each candidates % gives and takes to equal 100% all together.

Now enter the dickhead. He knows what your saying but he is a dickhead and he is a Ron Paul supporter so since there are only three Ron Paul supporters here 25% of them are dickheads.

Way to go dickhead.

0 Replies

I had the same interpretation as markr.

0 Replies

Can you interpret Amigo's post for me?

0 Replies

Ticomaya wrote:

Amigo, I think you might be the single smartest man on A2K. I am voting RON PAUL!!!

Thank you, and very good choice partner.

I knew you'd come around. Now run along little buddy, I think I hear an ambulance somewhere.

0 Replies

That's not a math problem and I don't think it's fair to attribute it to Ron Paul.

0 Replies

Amigo wrote:

Ticomaya wrote:
Amigo, I think you might be the single smartest man on A2K. I am voting RON PAUL!!!

Thank you, and very good choice partner.

I knew you'd come around. Now run along little buddy, I think I hear an ambulance somewhere.

Been smokin your Daddy's weed again, haven't you?

0 Replies

Ticomaya wrote:

Amigo wrote:
Ticomaya wrote:
Amigo, I think you might be the single smartest man on A2K. I am voting RON PAUL!!!

Thank you, and very good choice partner.

I knew you'd come around. Now run along little buddy, I think I hear an ambulance somewhere.

Been smokin your Daddy's weed again, haven't you?

No, I'm smokin my own weed. I need to dumb it down a little when I talk to you little guy.

0 Replies

TICOMAYO!!!!!!!!!

Let's have a truce......ok.

Nobody has to know about it.

What do you think about Ron Paul?

0 Replies

Amigo wrote:

I'm smokin my own weed.

That goes a long way towards explaining your last post on the original thread, I hope.

0 Replies

Amigo wrote:

What do you think about Ron Paul?

Not much, little buddy.

0 Replies

Ticomaya wrote:

Amigo wrote:
What do you think about Ron Paul?

Not much, little buddy.

Not much thinking going on ah captain? Lay off the roids and Lattes....you'll be alright cheif.

0 Replies

Amigo wrote:

Ticomaya wrote:
Amigo wrote:
What do you think about Ron Paul?

Not much, little buddy.
Not much thinking going on ah captain? Lay off the roids and Lattes....you'll be alright cheif.

You asked, I told.

I can't imagine you thought I might be a nutjob RP supporter.

0 Replies

I didn't. I'm polling.

0 Replies

"Bilingual" math meets Ron Paul math

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know