>>5262222
there is a programmers book, a genius C programmer. The book is titled Deep Sea Secrets. I have no connection to it but you must percur a copy and read it cover to cover if you really want to understand C/C++ . . . and if you don't know what that means than ignore that.
However within that book the author explains about programming 'proofs'. There was a rather detailed formal proof, drawn up in a side graphic that was the work of some other author. That author, (he's still alive as far as I know) pointed out that the 'proof', so meticulous and trivial was actually incorrect.
My point: when you know stuff a formal proof is just something to paste in a book. We already know what we need to about Q.
Unless you can give some quick and easy explanation a formal mathematacal proof of Q will probably be in a metalanguage of Truth Functional Logic and some accademic schema only understandable by a small few . . .
the data is all here. Just take it from the various breads. these are breads that if you take them, you still leave what you take.
PS Statistics are always used in politics to justify lies and false narratives. There is a code of ethics that a statistician ought to follow. Unfortunately most political people won't adhere to that ethos. Please understand that numbers are meaningless in a lot of way while you are hussling through the rain on your way to the factory job.
Also there are those things that if you can prove it to yourself you can't ever prove it to other people.
I think with Q it's this: if the Q team knows about you and they think your a dink then they let you 'know' that they 'are not real', but they are. They've just convinced you of otherwise (someone like Jack P whose like a lumbering fame whore who knows its wrong but does it anyway (I think it's someone behind him who promotes him that hard. He's kind of worthy of being part of a team (he's got a capable wife).
so he gets a lot of shit here. but he supposedly is sure sure sure that Q is fake and gay blah blah blah. He'll say that.
And he has the chat logs.
but then there are those other things here that if you follow along you see and know various individuals in the real world and hear narratives.
the proof of Q can be seeing the wide stretched tired eyes of a fetching young prosecutor who has access to the story and is ready to powerlift some Justice.
I don't need numbers. I see that 'they can't sleep when they know' eyes on those people and I think for me, what do I need numbers for? I go and pray for them. I say 'give them strength in this effort'.
but hey if you think that formal logical scribbles of numbers and statistics is going to help you prove Q, so you are saying you don't have your own inner proof, like knowing from other methods?
I guess to be authentic you'd have to be able to not be sure now, mr truth logic symbol formal proof guy.
I say look to their sleepless and shocked eyes and see they know something real. They have seen shit that other people really would rather not. And they have a cause of Justice that superceeds whatever sociological proofy math is given out by think tank organizers who ought to be prohibited from poloitics, on account of being taxfree and on the dole, or at least get nothing more than that, but they get handed free money from the government because they know the special forms to get and the special way to apply for the special money for special peole like them.
I say look at the eyes. See that look of the one who knows and can not sleep. Pray for their rest and strength.