Anonymous ID: 2609af March 6, 2019, 11:38 a.m. No.5541026   🗄️.is 🔗kun   >>1117

Are we idiots or autists?

Q keeps asking if we believe in coincidences, and at what point does it become mathematically impossible.

I think most of us could use a refresher on probability. Take, for instance zero deltas between Potus tweets and Q tweets. Every analysis I've seen here of the chances of 18 zero deltas has been done wrong. We intuitively look at the chance of both events taking place during a given specified minute, rather than the chances of any of the 2000+ Q posts happening at the same time as any of the 4000+ Potus tweets.

It boils down to the "birthday paradox." If you put 23 people in a room, there's a 50% chance that some pair of them will share the same birthday. That does not sound right, but it's true.

Here's a link to an explanation. There's also a calculator that you can use to actually calculate the odds of a zero delta.

Set the number of events at 720,000 (approximately the number of minutes since Q started posting.) And set the number of people in the room at somewhere around 3000 (average of Q and POTUS number of tweets – since the calculator does not have an option to put 4000+ and 2000+).

https://betterexplained.com/articles/understanding-the-birthday-paradox/

I remain convinced that Q is someone close to POTUS, but bad math just makes us look stupid and gullible.

Anonymous ID: 2609af March 6, 2019, 12:01 p.m. No.5541326   🗄️.is 🔗kun   >>1357

>>5541221

>it's not just about close deltas, but similar content.

Yes, I got that. That's why I remain convinced . . . but every few days I read someone doing a mathematical "proof."

>>5522102 (PB)

The logic in that post (for example) is>>5541315

based on the chance of a zero delta occurring at a specified minute rather than any match. That method vastly understates the chances of a zero delta. >>5541315

Then why are we still doing Q proofs and letting BS math slip through?