This means you have no life 😛

@AdvanceManExtraordinaire That was my point. It's not a necessary component of 'proof'.

I thought you had retaken your rightful spot... @Maw

its been used to initiate probable cause in the past https://www.wsj.com/articles/accountants-increasingly-use-data-analysis-to-catch-fraud-1417804886 it was only controversial once it was applied to US politics

🤔 Leap in logic fallacy

There have been proven cases of voter fraud before. If you make the fantastical claim of wide spread voter fraud you would have to prove it. Like I said the affidavits don’t mean anything is they can’t be verified. @AdvanceManExtraordinaire

It can be used to initiate probably cause perhaps, but someone who has actually studied the _math_ (as I have) will understand that it will just give false-positives for fraud if you use it on any distribution that is narrow

Spears doesn’t understand math or understands benfords law

go tell people sitting life in prison that affadavits mean nothing

That’s fair. I could challenge you on that, and reference a handful of court rulings in which justice was indeed not served, but it’s a reasonable spot to be in if you don’t have access to all the information.

🤷🏻‍♂️🤷🏻‍♂️

Affidavits that can’t be proven are worthless @SPEARS you can’t convict someone on a affidavit alone

And how would you verify the affidavits?

Benford's law is used as a means to show irregularities worth investing more time into investigation.

It's by no means an adequate tool of proof.

if anyone is interested in actually _trying_ benford's law on random normal distributions, see here: https://observablehq.com/@realazthat/benfords-law/2

the only way to get it to work is to raise the sigma

Well In some cases you can’t . Some lady say she saw something. You can’t prove that false or true unless there were camera present or something @AdvanceManExtraordinaire

no one is claiming it is, however people are claiming it isn

isnt realiable for anything

Watch what i sent... that goes into every countr point you make....

there is no situation where actual random data will apply to benfords law

I'm watching

This is the nature of affidavits that were used in court https://youtu.be/Q_get06-tgo “lies and spam” @AdvanceManExtraordinaire

Have there been any evidentiary hearings?

That is incorrect

Thanks! Pm me after if you like. I really want to know

I recommend watching the latest rr group video explaining the purpose of the earlier court cases

Not to mention that tabulated voter data is hardly random...

Whether it's reliable or not I have no idea, I don't think they have released any information on how frequently Benford's law leads to finding financial fraud.

there is no such thing as random in sets of numbers entirely generated by human interaction

he's claiming my demonstration shouldn't work (it clearly does ... just raise the sigma)

I understand the purpose. It’s to get try and stall for time so they can put something together. But even what they have put together so far is still speculation @AdvanceManExtraordinaire

If you witness someone murdering an innocent joggers in cold blood, do you think there should be a trial with cross examination of your witness testimony based on your affidavit?

So? why does this mean Benford's law shouldn't apply? Benford's law has nothing to do with humans

.....

it doesn't

Actually I believe humans are more random than computers. A random function on a computer is not really entirely random.

it works on any "natural numbers" or or any set of numbers that has certain properties

I get it... I was just disputing that voting data could be characterized as random.