Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: carranza2 who wrote (731425)	11/8/2020 12:00:08 PM
From: pheilman_	3 Recommendations Recommended By Neeka pak73 skinowski Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793801

Yes, that is the intuitive thought that the first digits will be evenly distributed, but it doesn't work out that way. The law was, indeed, founded on observations. An astronomer, Newcomb, and a physicist, Benford, noticed that the first pages in their log books became dirty and tattered long before the rest of the book. Before calculators, log books were used to find the log of a number to transform, difficult, multiplication into simple addition. People had to look up what the log was by flipping through the book to find the log. The pages were sequential for the number being looked up. Say 100 pages starting with 1, 100 pages starting with 2 and so on. Since 30% of the numbers being looked up were in the first 100 pages, those got worn out first. In contrast the 9 digit section barely got worn at all. The election forensic tool assumes that the fraudsters are aware of Benford's law and correctly divvy up the first digit. But, Benford's law also applies to the second digit. The fraud in Michigan and Wisconsin was so extreme there isn't any need to look at the second digit. I anticipate there will be a clear hot spot map coming out of the 2020 results. The physical dumping of ballots will show up like a sore thumb. It will be obvious who cheated and where.

To: carranza2 who wrote (731425)	11/8/2020 12:38:06 PM
From: 3bar	1 Recommendation Recommended By pheilman_ Respond to of 793801

It stands out on a bar chart .

To: carranza2 who wrote (731425)	11/8/2020 12:42:37 PM
From: skinowski	7 Recommendations Recommended By 3bar Ben Smith Bruce L burlegoat locogringo and 2 more members Respond to of 793801

I think I’m beginning to understand it. If you take any series of naturally occurring numbers - and pay attention only to the first digit - the resulting frequency of occurrence for individual digits in the series must comply with the Benford law. If it doesn’t, that means the series of numbers did not occur “naturally, but was manipulated. At the end of the article in the tweet he gives a link for those who would like to do it themselves: kdnuggets.com Inside this article, there is a link to a wonderful little video from the Khan Academy, which explains Benford law youtu.be They even have a link to a Netflix series called “Connected” which has an episode (#4) on this subject. So, basically, they take a list of election vote reports from several districts - and check the frequency of appearance of digits in the first position. If the distribution follows the Benford law, the election is kosher.