Advanced Mathematics for Senator Obama supporters

[Taxmyth]

Pay attention now children. We have learned in basic mathematics that 1+1=2. But most real world usage of mathematics involves what is known as a "variable". Sometimes this "variable" is assigned a value, or that value can be easily determined and sometimes it is an "unknown variable".

For example: Barack has 1714 delegates and needs 2024 to win the nomination. Hillary has 1584 delegates and needs 2024 to win the nomination. John has 18 and this is a "known variable". A simple equation using variables would look like this:

Barack: 1714 + X = 2024
Hillary: 1584 + X = 2024

To solve for X we need to isolate the variable on one side of the equation. To do this we simply subtract the 1714 from both sides of the equation for Barack and we have X= 310. Using the same method for Hillary we find that X= 440. Very simple, right children?

Now we are going to make things a little more difficult. We are going to introduce the concept of the "unknown variable". Suppose there are a substantial group of delegates that have not been assigned to either Barack or Hillary. We will assign this group the letter Y. This is how the equations now look:

1714 + (X + Y) = 2024 and 1584 + (X + Y) = 2024. We have already determined the value of X but how do we determine the value of Y?

We know from our reading that Y is composed of two subgroups: Pledged delegates and Super delegates. We will assign the subgroup of Pledged delegates the value of A and we will assign the subgroup of Super delegates the value of B. Our equations now look like this:

1714 + (X + Y) = 2024 - (A + B) and 1584 + (X + Y) = 2024 - (A + B)

We know from our reading that the Pledged delegates variable A will be defined at a later date and will be easily determined at that date. What about the Super Delegate variable B? Now our equation becomes even more difficult. We also know from our reading that some of the Super delegates have thrown their support towards either Barack or Hillary and others will follow before we can determine the value of A. We will assign this subgroup the variable of C. But what of the others? We will assign the remaining Superdelegates the value of D. Now our equations look like this:

1714 + (X + Y) = 2024 - (A + B) + (C + D) and 1584 + (X + Y) = 2024 - (A + B) + (C + D)

Yes, for you children that have read ahead, we can simplify this equation considerably but for right now, let's keep it this way.

As we have learned, the value of C should be known close to the time that we have finalized the variable A. But how do we determine the value of the variable D? Here is where the mathematics involved becomes extremely difficult. We know from our past experience and reading that the value of the variable D is effected by an infinite number of additional variables. Electability, popular vote, Florida and Michigan, scandals, heroics, ad infinitum. The variable D is completely unknown at this time and may not be known until a specific time frame, in this case August 25 - 28, 2008.

This children, is actually a very simple mathematical equation involving the use of variables. When we begin to work on the complexities of solving for the variable D in this equation over the coming weeks, we will introduce the use of multiplication and division using variables.

Your homework for tonight is to visit the Hillary Clinton website and donate. And don't forget, we have a test in two weeks.

[mmonk]

1. Lost in the jungle remote.

It will be a party decision that contradicts alot of the primary and caucus results if she is the nominee.

[roguevalley]

104. inspite of the OP's condescending tone and their hieroglyphic

attempt to hide the truth, she loses.

1). Pledged Delegates. By CNN's count, Clinton netted about 14 pledged delegates in Pennsylvania. That still leaves Obama up by 151 pledged delegates. It is likely that after Guam, Indiana and North Carolina, there will be no net change in pledged delegates, even if Clinton wins Indiana, since Obama will certainly pick up delegates in North Carolina. But at that point only 251 pledged delegates will remain to be chosen.

Even if she got 80% of all of the pledged delegates that remain after Indiana, she would still trail Obama at the end of the day.>>

Nice try though.

[Taxmyth]

134. But the race would still not be decided

and off to the convention it would go. But more than likely by June and with the result very much up in the air at this point.

[jettison]

191. The end result...

... isn't even remotely "in the air". It's on the ground, it's grown roots, it's being watered and cared for by nurturing Obama crowd. It's your head that's still "in the air", and beter put, "in the clouds".

[Name removed]

2. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[DU9598]

3. You're condescending

I know math and I know that Hillary cannot win either the popular vote total or the delegate total. It really is that simple.

[Taxmyth]

10. Nothing is that simple

Our economy, foreign policy, domestic policy, veterans affairs, job creation, healthcare costs. These are all areas Senator Clinton excels with in her policy proposals. You just cannot simplify randomly because you will undoubtedly get the wrong answer.

[crispini]

15. Her policy proposals? That's laughable

considering that Clinton and Obama's policy proposals are virtually identical, and everyone knows it.

Anyway, if we wait until August to have a nominee, the Democratic party is screwed. Fucked. Dead. We will not be able to compete against McCain with only 60 days of fundraising for the GE. If it goes to the convention, it doesn't matter WHICH one of them wins the nomination at that point; we will lose, period.

[marshall]

85. Well, she has proposed that Iran be obliterated

Obama proposes that we talk with them. That's a pretty stark difference.
For those who aren't familiar with parsing Clintonspeak, obliterate means "do away with completely, without leaving a trace."
For those mathematically inclined, the 2007 population of Iran is 65,397,521. That's a lot of obliteration, whether Hillary is talking about killing every man, woman, and child, or just obliterating their infrastructure and leaving them to starve to death.

[crispini]

116. True, that is indeed quite a difference.

She plans to out-warmonger McCain, IMO. Niiiiice.

[jettison]

192. He's referring to "the math"...

... and not the complexity of social or political issues. Of course, you missed that point, because you're not even able to grasp the math.

[underpants]

22. My favorite part of the Hillary act is how SHE can teach him, toughen him up

because without her there is just no way that guy will ever accomplish anything...right?

:sarcasm:

[jettison]

193. So true...

It's the condescending and motherly tone that gets me. Somehow, Obama "needs" her, or so she imagines.

[Zueda]

4. Phbt! nt

[CBGLuthier]

5. You know when you talk down to people

They tend to not give two shits what you have to say "daddy"

[havocmom]

12. Here's a style template for OP to consider when addressing facts and math

Well researched, well presented

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=5618233

And refutes this OP's simple minded approach. Delegates are not a simple matter. Nor are voters. OP is condescending and ignorant of the truth that that is one of the reasons HRC is not getting the grass roots support in funding and boots on the ground campaign help. Also a bit reason HRC is not getting the voter margins she needs to get the delegates.

[Taxmyth]

19. Very nice template but limited in it's use

It's specifically for PA but I did enjoy reading that post. I kind of like her writing though I don't think we agree on candidate choice.

[havocmom]

94. Thus my use of the word TEMPLATE

:eyes:

[Taxmyth]

18. I'm not your daddy

I began teaching my own children mathematics from the time they could talk (and I'm really not that good in the subject). They consistently receive top grades and take advanced courses in the subject. The fact that you feel I was condescending in what I wrote is more of a testament to how you feel about yourself then it is to what I wrote. We can discuss Psychology next, if you wish.

[CBGLuthier]

23. Well when you call adults

"children" time and again what the fuck would you call it.

Did you teach your children reading and english comprehension?

[Taxmyth]

29. Simply presented from a clasroom perspective

and those who are in school learning the use of variables in mathematics are children. Sorry if you are offended by my language, but again, this is more of a self image problem than attributable to what I wrote.

Yes, I encouraged my children to begin reading at a very early age and they consistently perform above grade level there. If only I had taught them handwriting though.....major drawback there but the older ones use word processing software for their assignments so it's not that much of a problem.

[greguganus]

57. Probably not married, unemployed, and living in your mom's basement. n/t

[dionysus]

89. oh bullcrap you were trying to flame....

sheesh... you're not even clever trying to do it...

:rofl:

[Shakespeare]

138. No, you're intentionally being a condescending ass.

Take the faux "who, me" business and blow it out your ass. Nobody's projecting--you simply are who you are, and we all recognize it.

[Taxmyth]

172. tsk tsk tsk

such anger over a few meaningless words. Why do you think that is?

[Shakespeare]

173. Oh, I'm not angry.

If I were angry, you and everyone else on this board would know it. I'm just calling you on your condescending bullshit.

[Taxmyth]

182. In response

Please read this thread as I'm tired of posting the same sentiments:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=5642962&mesg_id=5650689

[Shakespeare]

184. LOL. Classic.

"I said something offensive, but it's YOUR issue if you're offended by it."

Give me a fucking break. I'm 43, btw.

[Taxmyth]

209. Chronological age is not important

And exactly, it IS your issue if you are offended by it. It was a simple post, written with no conventionally offensive language or hypercriticism of any candidate. It was meant to show that there is a complex equation involved in deciding who the Democratic nominee will be for President. I have seen, and far too often, that it is only "simple math" when reality and the Democratic Party rules show that it is anything but that.

Why you were "offended" I have no idea and to be honest, I don't really care. Maybe it was the "homework" assignment at the bottom of the page.

In any event, I hope the rest of your day gets better.

[Shakespeare]

216. No, it's NOT my issue.

You deliberately condescend with you "my children" nonsense. Of COURSE people are going to take issue with that, and I'm sure you were well aware of that when you composed your OP.

And as for your "simple math" nonsense, others have already taken care of demolishing your argument in that regard, so there's no need for me to go there.

Your excuse is the domain of those who say outrageous, demeaning things, and then claim faux innocence and say "gee, I can't imagine why anybody would be offended by that..."

[Taxmyth]

241. If anyone is offended by the word children

I stand by my statement that it is more a statement of their self image than it is about anything I've written.

[Shakespeare]

243. I think I'll just let the unanimous reaction to you in this thread stand as the final point.

It's not the word "children," it's your condescending use of the word. As you're quite aware.

My self-image, and my maturity, is just fine.

[Taxmyth]

246. again, a mathematical error on your part

Unanimous means all. All reactions were not of the opinion the original post was condescending. Some were, I haven't counted but it may even be a majority though I doubt it. I have a hypothesis for that also but I've already stated that in a prior post I've written.

[Shakespeare]

247. Here: I'll put it in terms you can understand.

You're an ass. And if you take offense at that, that speaks to your own self-image, and not to anything I've said.

Now go do your homework, like a good little boy.

[proud2BlibKansan]

265. Ka Ching!!

:rofl:

[Taxmyth]

273. ROFL

I win.

[Shakespeare]

The funniest thing is....

...that you actually think so.

[Hola]

208. Self image?

"this is more of a self image problem than attributable to what I wrote. "

Ya, I guess the problem is that most of the adults on this forum don't view themselves as children.

[Taxmyth]

211. If they were comfortable with themselves as adults

they would recognize that the word "children" does not apply to them.

[chemenger]

110. "... and I'm really not that good in the subject."

That is painfully obvious.

From your username I'm going to assume that you are an accountant. Take my advice ... stick to grade-school arithmetic and leave the higher mathematics to the engineers and scientists.

[jettison]

195. too funny

"(and I'm really not that good in the subject)."

By your own words, you suck at math... and I agree with you 100%.

You can't imagine why calling everyone on the board "children" would come off as condescending, and you'd now like to talk psych 101 with us? No thanks. If your Psych sucks as bad as your math then we'd never learn anything.

[Taxmyth]

212. Hey, if the word children offends you so much

then you really can't be that comfortable with seeing yourself as an adult. I'm really finding this "poutrage" amusing. Maybe it was the "homework" assignment at the end of the post that really got your goat.

[jettison]

224. That's the thing...

... I'm not offended at all. I'm merely amused at the way you're trying to spin across the point that referring to a group of adults as children doesn't come across as condescending. That's like saying "Ok Einsteins... let me show you how it's done." It assumes a level of superiority. You know that. I know that. We all know that... but you just keep clinging to this spin tactic in attempt to defend an undefendable position. And again, it's merely just cute.

It's the same way that Clinton folks keep clinging to the notion that Hillary can win the election. It's like if you wish hard enough then your wish just has to come true... somehow... damn the math.

[beachmom]

6. The definition of someone who is brilliant is if they have the ability

to take something very complex, and boil it down to something simpler.

Your post is condescending and sneering, and does not even make sense to even those of us whose career deals largely in .... MATH.

[Taxmyth]

20. No more condescending than many Pro Obama posts touting the math

Mathematics is not my profession and I have nothing but respect for anyone who is in the field professionally. I believe it is the most important subject for children to learn and to begin learning it at a very early age. I'm sorry if you found the post "condescending" and "sneering" but that is more of a reflection on your self image than it is to what I wrote.

[Kajsa]

48. Excuse me?

"that is more of a reflection on your self image than it is to what I wrote."

That's the second time you've stated this and I'm only half way through
the responses.

That's BS!

That " lesson plan" of yours in the OP is condescending at best.

Students are not addressed as "children" they resent it like hell,
even the little guys.


If you tried your "lesson plan" in RL, you would fall flat on your face and have
a room full of squirrelly,frustrated kids on your hands.

How do I know this?

I teach- Substitute teach all subjects grades 1-12.

"reflection on your self image" - NOT!

[Taxmyth]

80. Teachers Rock

Thanks for doing what you do. I am not a teacher. Thought about it for about 10 minutes and realized I would not be comfortable in that role. And your pointing out that I shouldn't call kids "children" in about 8th grade (I think that's when algebraic equations are taught) would be a bad thing.

I recently gave a speech to a group of 8th graders and deliberately called them "teenagers" to get them on my side and interested in what I was talking about. It worked too :-)

Keep up the good work, YOU are what is going to make America strong in the future.

[Kajsa]

96. Thank you, Taxmyth!

I appreciate your kind words and support.

:) :pals:

[Kajsa]

51. Here here ,Beachmom!

You know the key to good teaching.

:applause:

[izzybeans]

7. .

:puke:

[gsaguyCLW54]

8. So glad to see another person who hasnt sipped the koolaid.

[wowimthere]

9. Florida and Michigan will be seated but it won't count... and if it does...

it will because Clinton and the Democratic party are trying to steal this from Obama. In me, they lose a Dem. Your math a in the realm of "the suspension of disbelief" because you have too many striking variables to the nomination. You're trying to create an argument. Florida and Michigan won't count as you'd like because both candidates agreed to the terms.

[Taxmyth]

25. Florida and Michigan

are only part of the equation. Seating or not seating Florida and Michigan are also variables that will have to be determined by the Party leadership as that decision will effect another equation and that is the Democratic Party as a whole.

[Buzz Clik]

11. Gee, that's "advanced math"? No, that was a shell game.

You get the same level of math at carnivals: "See you get three darts. You throw the darts at the numbers. Red is three times the number, blue is two times the number, and white is the number you hit. All three have to add up to 100. Okay? Let me show you ... I hit a five in the blue and a six in the red and a 9 in the white. That 3 times plus 6 times two and 5 times one ... that's 50. You're half way there, and I'm gonna give you those 50 points. No, for only $2 you can try for the last 50 points."

It's not math. It's bullshit.

The bottom line of your "advanced math": Fuck the elected delegates. Fuck the people who voted. If Hillary can find a way to steal the election, she will.

We're watching and counting, and we're a helluva lot better at arithmetic than some high-school dropout at working a carnival.

[Taxmyth]

30. Another one with intemperate language

Go to the Principals Office immediately.

[Buzz Clik]

35. Yeah, my "intemperate" language is born of rampant horseshit dealt in the name of truth.

Use a filter -- don't change a thing.

[Chalco]

13. I think you're on to something but could you simplify please.

I'm not stupid but....could you simplify?

[Buzz Clik]

16. Go away, son, you bother me.

[Chalco]

199. STFU

[Taxmyth]

31. Bottom line

It ain't over yet.

[Buzz Clik]

36. duh. But it's only a matter of time.

For all the wailing, "Why can't Obama close it out?", the reality is that Clinton can't close the gap.

Stick a fork in her. She's done.

[MannyGoldstein]

14. You Forgot Probability

Your math simply describes a process - it does not address the probabilities.

Given that the SDs have broken something like 10:1 for Obama since Super Tuesday, and given that Obama's lead in delegates is formidable at this late stage, the probability of Clinton losing is approaching 100%.

[Buzz Clik]

17. That's the trouble with you elitist types. You always think think think. You think too much!

Go with your gut. We love Hillary, so she's gonna win. Okay?

[grantcart]

77. difference between an abstract model and reality

http://bp0.blogger.com/_qJGvnOCBQcA/SAv3xx_oKHI/AAAAAAAAAOA/rJNo1pD7t-

[Taxmyth]

33. Absolutely correct

But probabilities are used for estimates and not to solve equations. While we might be able to determine the probablities of many of the variables, we cannot assign them those values because they would only be estimates.

[MannyGoldstein]

70. If I Gave You A Six-Shooter With Five Bullets Loaded

Would you point it at yourself and pull the trigger? Probabilities are critical.

[Taxmyth]

83. But not definite

Playing "Russian Roulette" is kind of a harsh example but there is a 1 in 6 chance that a bullet will not exit the weapon. And what are the other circumstances or variables involved? One would not necessarily perform this act willingly, suppose it's like a scene from the "Deer Hunter" where if the trigger is NOT pulled, the outcome is certain? Probablities are indeed critical but not definite.

[Aloha Spirit]

21. How disappointing. Senator, math is a friend of mine. And Senator, this is not math.

[JoFerret]

24. Thank-you

Helpful.

[TheDoorbellRang]

26. Have you always struggled with word problems?

:rofl:

Barack: 1714 + X = 2024
Hillary: 1584 + X = 2024

To solve for X we need to isolate the variable on one side of the equation. To do this we simply subtract the 1714 from both sides of the equation for Barack and we have X= 310. Using the same method for Hillary we find that X= 440. Very simple, right children?

Yup. With you so far:
Barack: 1714 + 310 = 2024
Hillary: 1584 + 440 = 2024

Say on...

Now we are going to make things a little more difficult. We are going to introduce the concept of the "unknown variable". Suppose there are a substantial group of delegates that have not been assigned to either Barack or Hillary. We will assign this group the letter Y. This is how the equations now look:

1714 + (X + Y) = 2024 and 1584 + (X + Y) = 2024. We have already determined the value of X but how do we determine the value of Y?

Y = 0, per your astute mathematical construct

Out of curiosity, how does your checkbook look? If you write a check for $100 based on your $100 in cash do you count your assets as $200? Why not send it to Hillary? You may be using the same math.


:rofl:

[Taxmyth]

37. You are mistaken

1714 + (X + Y) = 2024

and that is a seperate equation from

1584 + (X + Y) = 2024

the word "and" was intended as a seperator.

Say, do YOU have troubles doing word problems and balancing YOUR checkbook?

[TheDoorbellRang]

52. Again. I'll try to simplify for you

Here's your construct:

Barack: 1714 + X = 2024
Hillary: 1584 + X = 2024

To solve for X we need to isolate the variable on one side of the equation. To do this we simply subtract the 1714 from both sides of the equation for Barack and we have X= 310. Using the same method for Hillary we find that X= 440. Very simple, right children?

Barack: 1714 + X = 2024 ergo, 1714 + 310 = 2024
Hillary: 1584 + X = 2024 ergo, 1584 + 440 = 2024

Now we are going to make things a little more difficult. We are going to introduce the concept of the "unknown variable". Suppose there are a substantial group of delegates that have not been assigned to either Barack or Hillary. We will assign this group the letter Y. This is how the equations now look:

1714 + (X + Y) = 2024 and 1584 + (X + Y) = 2024. We have already determined the value of X but how do we determine the value of Y?

From our previous two equations, we know that X equals 310 in the first one and X = 440 in the second one. Now let's throw in Y for some reason:

1714 + 310 + Y = 2024
1584 + 440 + Y = 2024

Now, children. What does Y equal in both equations?:think:

[Taxmyth]

136. As I pointed out downstream a little

and thanked those that pointed it out, the variable X needed to change between equations. An error on my part and had the post still been open to edit, one I would have fixed. But we've covered that error here in class already.

[karynnj]

108. And it is impossible for both of these cannot simultaneously be true

for any value of X and Y. Let Z = X + Y and substitute - then you find that Z = (2024 - 1714) AND Z = (2024 - 1584). That's not possible.

[Taxmyth]

137. Seperate equations

but you are correct nonetheless. There was an error in the blackboard presentation that could not be corrected in time but you will notice that the correction involves the introduction of even more variables into the equation. Simple math it ain't.

[karynnj]

205. Actually, accurate math, it ain't - as any number of people told you

[Taxmyth]

213. I agree, it is VERY complex and difficult to find the correct answer

and not as simple as some others posts might want you to believe. I have no problems admitting when I am wrong about something and my presentation was definitely incorrect. It was incorrect because it is even more complex than I tried to present.

[proud2BlibKansan]

269. Your spelling is about as good as your math

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/separate

[HCE SuiGeneris]

119. Massive failure. Touting skills that you do not possess is beyond hubris.

The drawing board beckons for you.

[Pryderi]

27. Wow! This sounds like creationist logic where God is the "unknown variable" for the theory of

human existence.

[Taxmyth]

39. Except THAT can never be defined here on earth

while the mathematical equation I've shown has variables that will be defined at a future date and will be known to everyone.

[Pryderi]

42. I'll stay up all night on December 24th so I can prove Santa exists.

[Taxmyth]

140. aaaah, but Santa DOES exist

Just not in the form most people are shown. You must not have young children.

[Pryderi]

264. I have a stepchild and grandchildren. What that has to do with your lack of logic I don't know.

[Taxmyth]

275. Logic and critical thinking

I set out to make a point. That point was proven, not by me but by dozens of Senator Obama's supporters.

Take good care of your child and grandchildren. Judging by what you have written (it was not a nasty personal attack), I have faith that you do. Teach them what you know.

Peace.

[Chan790]

28. Disappointing...

I was waiting for an actual mathematic conclusion and a hypothesis based upon such. It's a topic of interest to me; I'm a scholar of politics first and foremost. I wrote my thesis on election theory. I though we were finally going to have some intelligent discourse in GDP.

That...was like nookie without climax.

[Taxmyth]

45. Sorry to disappoint

I can make a hypothesis based on that equation and using my understanding of the variables involved but I thought it would be hypercritical of one candidate and the equivalent of throwing gasoline on an already raging fire. The post was simple, at best, but I would love to see the level of discourse raised in GD:P.

[OnlyObama]

32. Hey, how about you and I bet $100 that Obama is the nominee??

[JackORoses]

38. good luck with that. I have yet to find a Hillarite with the balls to bet on her.

[Taxmyth]

47. Now we're talking

since Senator Obama has the better set of the equivalent of Past Performances in Horse Racing, you would have to give me odds of 4-1 or better before I'd consider that wager. I think Senator Clinton has the Back Class to negate any perceived advantage Senator Obama appears to have and I'm looking for her to make a move down the stretch and nip him at the wire.

[OnlyObama]

147. Coward!

[Taxmyth]

217. Excellent Handicapper

PM me at the end of April for my Kentucky Derby pick. I haven't had my top horse finish out of the money with my KD pick in 16 years. I even picked Giacomo to Win.

[beandoc]

34. FAIL!

It took me a minute, but seriously BIG FAIL, and never try and teach math again.
Let's go through this:

"To solve for X we need to isolate the variable on one side of the equation. To do this we simply subtract the 1714 from both sides of the equation for Barack and we have X= 310. Using the same method for Hillary we find that X= 440. Very simple, right children?
Now we are going to make things a little more difficult. We are going to introduce the concept of the "unknown variable". Suppose there are a substantial group of delegates that have not been assigned to either Barack or Hillary. We will assign this group the letter Y. This is how the equations now look:
1714 + (X + Y) = 2024 and 1584 + (X + Y) = 2024."

X is already your unkown variable which is composed of unassigned delegates. Reassigning the letter Y an unknown variable you already have in your equation does make your equation look more complex, but not more accurate.
Simpler: If all of the unassigned delegates go to the value Y, then X = zero and is no longer needed in the equation.
i.e. FAIL.

Apply same logic to your attempt to add C + D to A + B.
If all pledged delegates determined in the future are C and all superdelegates determined in the future are D and all previously determined pledged and superdelegates are in the numbers 1714 or 1584, then A = zero, and B = zero.

Your score= zero and may God have mercy on your soul.

[chemenger]

113. Whoa!!!!

:spray: :rofl: :rofl: :applause: :yourock:

" ... and may God have mercy on your soul." Funniest damn line I've read in GD:P in a LONG, LONG time.

[Milo_Bloom]

40. So you are saying she has no path to nomination.

We know a bunch of the values...

For example, we know that there are only 303 superdelegates left to decide. Further we know that Clinton has only been able to attract only about 54% of the DECIDED superdelegates.

We also know that she would have to attract over 65% of the remaining superdelegates AND score 40 point victories in several states to even have a chance and that presumes she doesn't lose NC or OR.

In short... she has no path to nomination.

[DerekJ]

41. TaxMYTH: Over here:

Define the variables for me again.

What is X, Y, A, and B?!

On Edit: If possible, can you let me how advanced your math skills are, so I know which route should I take in explaining things to you?!!

Mine is: Electrical Engineering, currently doing my masters.

[Buzz Clik]

49. Double-E. Sweet jeebus. Another friggin' geek.

[DerekJ]

54. Just wait .. I'm waiting for him to speak Math to me. It will be fun to humiliate him. "Kids?!" , we

"Kids"?!! , we will see.
:rofl:

[gkhouston]

121. I'd say his math includes imaginary numbers.

Then again, he may think complex numbers need psychoanalysis.

[EnviroBat]

61. Maybe THIS was his high-school math test...

[DerekJ]

64. hahahah

:rofl:

[Taxmyth]

53. Congratulations

I wish you nothing but success in your chosen studies and field. By trade I am an Accountant and use relatively simple mathematics on a daily basis. Calculus 1 was as far as I got in college (B). I enjoyed Statistics much more.

Your knowledge of mathematics is probably incredibly more advanced than mine, studying for your Masters in EE. There is no doubt you could shred my equation to pieces but I think I used a relatively simple analysis of what's left to be decided before a nominee is selected.

[Occam Bandage]

62. So basically, "oh, fuck, never mind."

[DerekJ]

67. If your math is right, your math is right. I won't be able to argue against it.

However I've failed to understand your definitions for the variable,. And your point totally escaped me.

[Taxmyth]

76. The unknown variable(s)

are dependent on what occurs over the next few weeks. I understand Senator Obama supporters would love to see Senator Clinton painted as "unelectable" or to drop out of the race completely but the reverse is also possible and must be considered.

[Occam Bandage]

82. So really, your entire post is this:

"Neither candidate is at 2024 yet, and anything could happen."

You've then inflated that with half-understood math you remember from eighth grade and, realizing that your point is both mundane and uninformative, coated that with a crude caricature of a grade-school teacher to disguise that sad realty.

[Taxmyth]

87. It evidently drew enough attention from you

to warrant several comments. Class participation is important and a sign of how well a teacher is performing in the classroom. I'm not sure if your comments are appropriate for this lesson but your participation is certainly welcome.

[Occam Bandage]

91. And if you're familiar at all with me,

and I am aware you are not, the degree of my participation in a thread can be determined by the following (very simple) equation, with x being the quality of the post, on a scale of 0 to π (doesn't everyone measure quality in radians?), with 0 being absolute shit and π being absolute gold.

f(x)=1/(sin x)

While you might complain that this provides undefined participation at the maximum and minimum definitions of x, I find this equation serves quite nicely, as I consider both a 0-quality thread and a π-quality thread to be Pythagorean ideals unattainable by any mortal. You come closer to 0 than most, but there is some small redeeming quality to it.

(As a TA, I can say this: if your students are pointing out egregious flaws in your math and logic, and explaining to you over and again why your lesson plan is irredeemably flawed, it is not a sign of success. It is a sign of failure.)

(Addendum: I am not a TA in mathematics.)

[Taxmyth]

141. Actuallly they are proving my point

I didn't use enough variables to correctly state the equation.

[Shakespeare]

139. HAHAHA!! In other words....

You fold. :rofl:

[Ikonoklast]

163. Ha! Got you in the crushing grip of reason!

Electricity is a myth!

It's invisible, and all smart people refuse to believe in invisible stuff, like ghosts, or Bigfoot!


Refute that, you, you believer in fairy tales!








:hide:

[Occam Bandage]

43. Nonsense wrapped in unearned condescension.

[Taxmyth]

58. again,the condescension factor

says more about your own self image than what I wrote. It never bothers me to have concepts I do not understand, or that I have the wrong ideas about, explained to me. The information is what is important, not the manner in which it is presented.

[Occam Bandage]

60. Were I more concerned about manner than substance, I would have written

"Condescension conveying nonsense."

[SeaLyons]

44. hillaryclinton.com

go there!!! I did!!! Donate today!!

Go Hillary!!

[Taxmyth]

59. Excellent

Donating tomorrow myself (payday). You get an A on your homework assignment!

[Nederland]

46. You flunked Algebra didn't you?

Ok, let's take this one step at a time. To simplify I'll just look at the Obama equations.

You start with this:

1714 + X = 2024

Where X is the number of delegates Obama needs to win. Unfortunately for you, this is the last thing you say that actually makes sense.

Your next equation is this:

1714 + (X + Y) = 2024

And you note that we have already determined the value of X.

Well genius, if we already know the value of X (which you correctly compute to be 310) then then value of Y is zero.

Then you proceed to get even stupider by introducing this:

1714 + (X + Y) = 2024 - (A + B)

where A is pledged delegates and B is super delegates.

This makes absolutely no sense at this point because we already know that X=310 and Y=0, which means that A=0 and B=0 (more accurately, A+B=0, but I'm assuming that delegate counts can't be negative--who knows in your mathematical universe though...). And what exactly are you trying to represent by A and B? It's a bit murky here. Are they delegates that Obama has yet to win, or his total count after all is said and done?

I could continue but at this point I think you need to go back to the drawing board...and school.

[Taxmyth]

65. I like what you did there

And yes, you did correctly identify a flaw in the way the information was presented. What I should have said was that "although we have determined the definition of that variable X in the prior equation, with the introduction of the new variable Y, the variable X is once again an unknown in the next equation".

I did not point out that each equation was seperate as additional variables were added.

Thank you for pointing that out. You get an A for class participation.

[Nederland]

74. I see

So you continually change the definitions of the variables as the post progresses (kinda like Hillary continually changes the definition of success as the campaign progresses).

Well, would you care to define X, Y, A, B, C, D as they are used in the last equation? Thanks.

[Occam Bandage]

79. So you're changing the variables without warning?

Seriously, no snark here. This might explain why your OP is such unreadable nonsense, and why the math is in turn obvious and bizarre.

You know, you can use any letter or symbol you like for a variable. If you run out, you can use greek letters too. Once you use a variable, you really shouldn't reuse it for anything else. If they're similar things--such as polling data from different weeks--you can label them X1, X2, X3,...,XN, but for God's sakes you shouldn't be reusing them. Variables are like condoms; once you've used them you really shouldn't try to wash them and put them on again.

You shouldn't use a variable without first explaining exactly what it is representing, and you shouldn't change the definition of a variable at any point. Each equation you list needs stand on its own regardless of where in your post it appears, and that's impossible if the definition of your variables is changing with your whims.

[Taxmyth]

90. They are all seperate equations and you are correct

They do not flow from one to the next with the introduction of an additional variable. I did make an error in my presentation which, unfortunately, I am not able to correct at this point. You are absolutely correct in that I should have not have used the same designation (X) for the variable that represents Pledged delegates and that I should have introduced additional variables in it's stead.

[Occam Bandage]

99. You made multiple errors. You're using the same variables all over, whether they

are defined, undefined, applying to Clinton, applying to Obama, everything. You simply have no idea what you're doing here.

You have wandered into one of the prime rules of the internet--using a small degree of knowledge in a field to fake a moderate degree of knowledge will only result in embarrassment.

[Taxmyth]

142. What do you know, even MORE variables to consider

You are absolutely correct that I did not use enough variables to correctly state the equations.

[Nederland]

114. Exactly

Let me suggest the following:

P(o) = pledged delegates for Obama
P(c) = pledged delegates for Clinton
S(o) = super delegates for Obama
S(c) = super delegates for Clinton

With these definitions, the following equations are true:

P(o) + P(c) + S(o) + S(c) = 4,049
P(o) + P(c) = 3,253
S(o) + S(c) = 796

(Numbers taken from: http://content.scholastic.com/browse/article.jsp?id=3748840)

Start with that and build up...

[Taxmyth]

149. It REALLY is difficult to do the math on this issue

That's the point that I'm trying to make. Thanks for your support.

[Occam Bandage]

293. No, it really isn't. Nobody has had the slightest trouble but you.

[Taxmyth]

151. See, the Math is VERY difficult when it comes to who gets the nomination

That was the idea I was trying to present.

[Gore1FL]

214. No, it really isn't

2025-delegates earned = number needed.

Number needed / Delegates remaining = percentage a candidate has to have to get to 2025

2 equations, both taught in elementary school.

[Taxmyth]

219. You missed the point

You came up with a figure for the number that was NEEDED to win but not how that value is actually going to be determined and assigned. That's what makes it very complex. Definitely not the simple math some would have you believe.

[Gore1FL]

287. That is already blatently obvious.

Primaries and the choice of the Super delegates. Pretty much the future primaries will split with a slight advantage overall for Obama. The remaining super delegates are going to break at least 50%-50% to Obama. There is no convincing argument that anything different will happen. If you have one, please post it.

[anigbrowl]

274. Only for you, Taxmyth.

[chemenger]

115. "... a flaw in the way the information was presented." And I suppose

that you would say that you mis-stated. It took several posts from several different people before you saw the flaw in your mathematics. And you're a double EE. I'm a chem E with 30 years experience under my belt. I wouldn't want you on any design team of mine.

[Taxmyth]

145. Even more variables were needed in the equation(s)

and that was the point that I was trying to prove. It's NOT just a case of simple addition and subtraction.

[Rosa Luxemburg]

120. ahem!

'separate' not 'seperate' go back to school you naughty boy

[Taxmyth]

146. Thank you for the spelling correction

in longer posts I generally use the spell check feature but not in quickly typed responses. Thank you for pointing out my error.

[EFerrari]

78. LOL

[TheDoorbellRang]

86. I tried to point this out upthread

But it's evidently a difficult concept to grasp. If this guy/gal is an accountant, I wouldn't hire them to do my taxes.

[Marnieworld]

131. Thank you

The cognitive dissonance made my head hurt. :eyes:

[snooper2]

50. you must be single...

nt

[zulchzulu]

55. OK Einstein. Pull out your abacus and show us how she gets more delegates than Obama

Let's see it, genius.

[Taxmyth]

68. The unknown variables will be defined at a later date

and with so many variables involved, there is no telling what the definitive answer will be.

[zulchzulu]

71. Is that a real Abacus or a Sears Abacus?

You. Got. Jackshit.

[SurfingAtWork]

56. Your post made a scene from Billy Madison

pop into my head. I'm going to change it a little bit though, just for you.

"Mr. Taxmyth, what you've just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent post were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this thread is now dumber for having read it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul."

[Taxmyth]

69. Adam Sandler

is one of my kids favorite movie stars. They have all his discs. I thought the character in Billy Madison was too over the top though it is a pretty funny movie.

[Occam Bandage]

72. Might I venture to suggest that the reason for his popularity among your progeny

is that Mr. Sandler reminds them of their father?

[Taxmyth]

93. Very well could be

and since they enjoy his body of work it would be pleasing to me to be held in that same regard

[blm]

63. Reality for HRC - The supers ARE in Obama's corner, most waiting till after Penn for

Hillary to have her hurrah. The news organizations have had the story about the surveyed supers for over two months.

Hurrah.

The MATH is with Obama. It is AGAINST Hillary and the fascist wing of the Dem party that supports her.

[The Stranger]

66. Aw, fuck. That makes my head hurt.

[SaveAmerica]

73. You just wasted all that time to write that and Hillary is still behind in almost everything

[barack the house]

75. REALLY NO, YOU'RE KIDDING. We know this SDs won't vote for a campaign always going into the red.

[BootinUp]

81. K&R

:kick:

[grantcart]

84. The difference between theory and fact

Hillary's 'B' is a depreciating asset

Obama's 'B' is an appreciating asset.
You forgot some other known variables

"C" = superdelegates who on paper are for Hillary but are actually going to vote for Obama
"D" + Clinton superdelegates who are softening in their support for Hillary
"E" = Add on Super Delegates who are committed to Obama and simply waiting for the formality of state conventions to formalize their selection.


Other unknown variables

"F" - pledged delegate selection from the state convention process that will differ from the projected. It is expected that Obama will pick up more delegates from this process in Texas, Iowa and Idaho as the final state conventions decide the actual totals.


Oh and while I was writing this Obama's 'B' just went up one.

[beandoc]

88. In summary

1714 + (X + Y) = 2024 - (A + B) + (C + D)

Assigning your variables:

1714 + delegates needed to win + delegates that he will win = 2024 - pledged delegates needed + superdelegates needed + pledged delegates he will win + superdelegates he will win.

Since:
delegates needed to win = pledged delegates needed to win + superdelegates needed to win
delegates he will win = pledged delegates he will win + superdelegates he will win.

Therefore:
we can then cancel these factors out of the equation

and:
1714 = 2024

By damn, you've mathematically proven that OBAMA just WON the nomination!!!

Congratulations.


edit for grammar.

[Taxmyth]

98. ROFL

There were corrections needed to the equations presented, the most important of which was assigning a different variable to represent pledged delegates for each equation. In real life I am not a teacher of Mathematics and that is probably a good thing.

[karynnj]

92. I actually have an advanced degree in Mathematics

I know advanced mathematics, and this is not advanced mathematics. This, if it were sensible, would be at best high school algebra, but even then your "variables" need subscripts - as Hillary's X, Y, A, B, C and D are NOT the same as the same variable for Obama. You also have a bit of a logic problem - you solve for X then you create a Y, but by your own definition of X - which you say "we know", Y would be zero. Try plugging in the values of X if you question that. The rest of what you write is similar gobbledygook.

Math modeling is not among your strengths - I hope this is not a field that you hope to ever enter.

Your homework - donating to Clinton will not make this the least bit clearer - and I'm not delusional enough to think that someone who is seen as not trustworthy by a majority of the country is electable. As to the test - you have tested our patience enough already.

[Taxmyth]

95. You are correct on several points

I did make errors in that model and several outstanding math posters pointed them out. I can't change what I put up but I will thank you for your input on the subject. I have nothing but the highest regard for anyone who has gone on in the subject of Mathematics beyond the required classes.

[kwenu]

100. Don't be so hard on Hillary's undereducated. They can't help it.

[mistertrickster]

97. K'd and R'd to show how Clintonistas think. Here are the real numbers--

These are projections based on Obama's poll numbers.

Clinton. . . .Obama
KY 37 . . . . .16
WV 22 . . . . 11
NC .55 . . . . 70
IN . 39 . . . . 43
OR .28 . . . . 34
MT . .8 . . . . .5
SD . .8 . . . ..11

. . . 197 . . .190

Clinton gains maybe seven delegates by the time the convention rolls around, and Obama is still ahead by some 150 delegates.

Plus, it gives only about three months for Obama to campaign nationally against McCain.

Somebody who believes in party and principle would have dropped out by now.

That's not Clinton.

[nichomachus]

101. Don't you just love the patronizing tone of Hillary supporters

that's a big reason she's losing

[Medusa]

103. She's Queen Hillary

and the presidency is hers dammit! They don't like threats to their throne don't you know. :eyes:

[zulchzulu]

105. What's hilarious is that the "final answer" is that variables can't be found...

If this knucklehead was a math teacher, he'd be fired. Hmmm...maybe he couldn't cut making it through college. That would make sense for his support of Hillaryworld.

[Taxmyth]

133. Made it through college

Received a BS cum laude, but not in mathematics. And the variables can be found but not at this particular point in time. Thanks for playing.

[dbmk]

102. Couple of questions

Actually only one:

Could you explain what all the variables stand for in your final formula?

Because there is no string of logic going from your first one to the last one, and at least X, Y, A and B seem to change in what they represent as you go along.

[Erin Elizabeth]

112. Thank you!

You put it very well. I'm no math person, either, but I was really trying to follow it all the way through (despite the smarmy condescending tone which I tried to ignore) but it stopped making sense pretty early on.

[Aloha Spirit]

106. This thread makes me sad because it creates the illusion that Obama supporters are better at math

than Hillary supporters. I know this not to be true, but this thread is only feeding the prejudice.
So sad :(

[Greyskye]

111. sometimes, if it walks, talks, and quacks like a duck

it really is a duck.

In this case, a very lame one.

[Taxmyth]

152. You would think so

but with so many Obama supporters pointing out that additional variables were needed in the original problem they only proved the point that I was trying to make - It ain't over.

[Aloha Spirit]

165. Wrong----please read, as I was kind enough to read your OP

As it stands now, WITH Pennsylvania included, 84/74 for Clinton:
Pledged delegates
Clinton = 1333
Obama = 1494
Edwards = 18
Remaining pledged delegates: approximately 408

Automatic delegates
Clinton =256
Obama = 232
remaining automatic delegates: 306

Iowa caucuses this weekend will dribble delegates away from Edwards and into Obama's column. A top Edwards advisor has also stated today that Edwards is backing Obama. 49 North Carolina representatives have endorsed Obama today. Basically, thats at least 12 Edwards delegates for Obama. This is not an unknown variable. It is a consitutive part of the probabilistic reasoning that favors Obama.

FL and MI counting is a very low probability, like, zero.
They will be seated, but not in such a way that overturns the nomination as it stands in early June.
It is nearly zero because it would require overturning the 2008 primary rules as set out by the 2006 DNC Fall Committee meeting, and to do that would require majority approval by the credentials committee, a majority of which is either Obama-selected or Dean-selected. Like I said, zero probability.

If Florida and Michigan were to be counted, however, that would also increase the threshhold to from 2024 to 2208, making the nomination still much farther out of reach for Clinton than it is for Obama.

I don't need variables to see that Clinton cannot win this thing.

[Taxmyth]

176. You used probabilities in your analysis

and again, we see the math involved is just not as simple as some would like to believe. The big question is whether or not anything happens in the next hour, the next day, the next week or within the next few weeks that causes one candidate or the other to be viewed as un-electable in November. It could follow the scenario you've laid out for us, or it could follow another one completely.

The bottom line is, we don't know the answer as of right now and there is not definitive way to know until all variables are known for certain.

[Aloha Spirit]

178. Yes, and the probability is zero%

[Taxmyth]

183. Even that is an estimate

might be a good one, might not. We'll see.

[Aloha Spirit]

190. Fair enough! How's about we don't call each other children from now on. Some of us here teach math

for a living, as well as do other useful things requiring skills and intellect.

[Taxmyth]

221. Don't take it personally

the "homework" assignment at the bottom should have been the clue needed to see the vein it was written in. And if you're a Math Teacher, my hat is off to you. YOU are what is going to make the latest generation of Americans the greatest ever! Keep up the good work and there are Parents that most assuredly appreciate what you have chosen to do. Like me.

[Aloha Spirit]

227. awwwww

cheers to that :toast:

[chemenger]

107. You're a condescending ass

and you're mathematics are so totally fucked its not worth the time and effort to try to educate you.

[Taxmyth]

153. such language

You also, to the Principals Office.

[sakura]

109. You didn't pass high school algebra, did you?

I hope you weren't as insulting to your children when you tried to teach them this subject. Your post is embarrassing to all the Clinton supporters out there who are offended when they are told they can't do math. One thing is clear-- you can't.

Regardless of that, let's look at your errors.

First of all, x is a variable, not a "known" variable (versus the "unknown" variable you describe later). If we actually "knew" what is was, it wouldn't vary, would it? We can, however, solve for x, to find out its value.

Second, you've defined x as the number of delegates a candidate needs to win. In this case, because we're dealing with whole numbers (not negative numbers or fractions, etc.) x has only one value. Therefore by definition, both of these equations cannot be true at the same time :

1714 + X = 2024
1584 + X = 2024

Why is that so?

Because the value for x in the two equations differs.

So if you want to be mathematically accurate, (and please note that I'm not calling you a child, kid, etc., although it would be really easy to be condescending at this point), you'd need to assign a different variable to each. Let's start over and assign n as the number of delegates Obama needs and m as the number of delegates Clinton needs:

1714 + n = 2024
1584 + m = 2024

Your next mistake are the following equations:

1714 + (X + Y) = 2024 and 1584 + (X + Y) = 2024.

Again, we need to correct your earlier error, so let me do that (I won't penalize you twice, as it's the same mistake):

1714 + (n + y) = 2024 and 1584 + (m + y) = 2024

Hold on! You made the same mistake again, this time for y. As I explained earlier, y has a single value. It can't be the same value for each candidate for the same reason x couldn't. The numbers needed by each are different, and a single Y has only one whole number value.

So to be mathematically correct, your equations need to be revised to:

1714 + (n + r) = 2024 and 1584 + (m + s) = 2024

But wait, there's another mistake!

You already defined n and m (x, in your original post) as the number of delegates needed to get to 2024. But if that's true, r and s (y in your original post) must be zero. What your equation says (in non-mathspeak) is that number of delegates needed plus number of delegates needed plus number of delegates already earned equals 2024. I think you can agree that is not correct-- that's not what you meant, is it? I see that you addressed this later on in your post, by redefining Y, but that's a really weak (and confusing) problem solving strategy. Variables have a single assignment in mathematics-- there's no switching horses or moving the goal posts midway. But even when you did redefine it (as A + B), the two together are still the same as x. Why would you include both (A + B) and x in the same equation?

So let's try to fix your mess of an equation. Let's redefine your x (r and s, that is) as the number of pledged delegates each needs, and y (m and s, that is) as the number of superdelegates each needs. Ah, that makes more sense!


What else do we know? (The following numbers are from http://demconwatch.blogspot.com/2008/01/superdelegate-list.html )

Number of delegates left = 408, so n or m can be any whole number value up to and including that.
However, n + m = 408, as that is the total number of pledged delegates still available. In other words, Obama and Clinton cannot both get 408 delegates-- they have to share.

Number of super delegates left = 307 , so r and s can be any whole number value up to and including that. However r + s = 307, as that is the total number of SD still available. In other words, Obama and Clinton cannot both get 307 SD. They have to share.

What does all this prove? Same thing as your OP. Absolutely nothing. All it does is support, in mathematical language, what the rest of us have been saying for months, now. There are only a set number of delegates left, and a snowball's chance of your candidate getting enough to win the nomination.

One of the difficult things about teaching (apart from losing the condescending attitude, which in truth is not that difficult to do if you truly respect your students and love your job) is making things as simple as possible, while keeping things accurate. For the record, I have taught a lot of kids algebra. And they've actually learned it!

Thanks for mocking my profession.

[HCE SuiGeneris]

118. BRAVO!

:applause:

[Swamp Rat]

127. LOL!

:applause:

I can't wait until the OP tries to use multiple regression! :9 :evilgrin:

[Occam Bandage]

130. And the winner of the thread is...

[Taxmyth]

154. Thank you for proving my point

And that is it is not just a case of simple mathematics when it comes to who will get the magic 2024 delegates. I in no way was making fun of the profession of teaching mathematics and that your considering my post a "mocking" of your profession speaks more to your own self image than it does to what I wrote.

Please, keep up the good work of teaching and be extremely proud of the work you do. I am in no way, shape or form qualified to teach mathematics in a school and have nothing but the greatest respect for anyone who does.

[dbmk]

225. A small correction

I actually started out to do what you just did, but realised that there was no logic pinning the separate parts together.

But: "Number of super delegates left = 307 , so r and s can be any whole number value up to and including that. However r + s = 307, as that is the total number of SD still available. In other words, Obama and Clinton cannot both get 307 SD. They have to share."

Given that SDs can switch from an already pronounced support - r or s can actually be negative. As I see it.

But that sort of pales nexxt to the realisation that someone tried to be condescending using language they did not know how to speak.

[Taxmyth]

244. again, the condescending factor

But before that, thank you for proving my point that the mathematics involved in the Democratic Party process are not as simple as some posters might have you believe.

If you were personally offended by what I wrote, felt it was condescending in tone and content, then you did not take the time to understand what was written there. That speaks more to your own self awareness than what I wrote. Reading comprehension is also taught very early on in the high school years.

[mkultra]

117. you have no math skills whatsver do you?

There is no D in this equation, there is only the following:

1714 + X + Y + FL(0) + MI(0) = 2024

1584 + X + Y + FL(0) + MI(0) = 2024

With x being pledged delegates, Y being Supers, FL and MI being pledged from those two states.

The variables can only be guessed at using probability.

As it stands now, Obama needs 299 delegates and Hillary needs 432.

there are 408 pledged delegates remaining, not counting supers.

she has a chance, but she will have to get MI and FL seated and WIN a majority of the remaining pledged and supers while Obama can lose in the remaining primaries and still win the nomination.



FYI, all variables are unknown, thats why we use the variable and not the value.

[Taxmyth]

155. absolutely, the variables are unknown at this point

hence the Primary process continues. Thank you for proving the point I was trying to make.

[mkultra]

157. you are correct

The method for her winning the nom is unknown.

[goclark]

122. Since most of us have advanced degrees

please don't talk down to us, it makes us think less of you.:sarcasm:

[Taxmyth]

156. As I've said earlier

your taking of my words as a personal affront by considering them condenscending in nature speaks more to your personal self image than anything I wrote. But thanks for playing.

[tomp]

123. taxmyth, you are useless, please do not post ever again.

as a matter of princilpe i will not put you on ignore (i don't use that function, though with this one post you are the person who has tempted me the most in eight years) but ONLY as a matter of principle. go stand in the corner...really.

[Taxmyth]

158. your choice

I wasn't rude or exceptionally nasty to anyone here in this thread. I refer to the candidates by their elected titles or their given names on all threads, and I don't use derogatory terms towards supporters of any candidate. I just happen to think one candidate is more qualified than the other 2 to be President. If it's merely the IDEAS behind what I am posting than your putting me on ignore speaks worlds about you as an individual.

[tomp]

291. your main "idea" is arrogance and you have been outed.

firstly, an apology is in order to all those you spoke down to as "children". you WERE rude and you deserve to be chided.

secondly, the ideas behind what you're posting are drivel. you truly are useless and what's worse is you don't know it.

thirdly, there are some TRULY bad ideas that surface on du. i want to see them so i know how bad it is out there. i've had knockdown drag out fights with people but i don't put them on ignore. you have taken condescension and arrogance to such heights that you've become almost amusing in the awful sort of way someone like, say, george w bush is.

[oasis]

124. A take 'em to school kick.

:kick:

[Buzz Clik]

125. Hillary and Obama are climbing the same rock face....

[Taxmyth]

159. He's on a ledge, the summit is further up the mountain.

Looks like he's taking a rest here.

[Buzz Clik]

167. Keeping telling yourself that, Dorothy.

[gkhouston]

126. Are your tax returns like this? If so, great choice of username. n/t

[Taxmyth]

160. MY tax return is far more difficult than this

Software makes it a lot easier but you still have to know where to look to cut the tax burden.

[RichardRay]

128. Damn, I hate having to work...

I scratched the original 'equations' down and went to a boring meeting at which no one wanted my input and to which I had only been invited to provide another audience member. While sitting there I tried to work out a model that could be used for a sensitivity analysis for the value of D. I kept getting jibberish. When I dropped my assumption that the original 'equations' made any sense I got the same reductio that 'beandoc' did. I came directly back to my computer to post it, but, alas, I was beaten to it, twice.

The only thing I can think of is that Taxmyth is a strict constructivist and denies proof by contradiction?

[AtomicKitten]

129. Red Clue Phone for you: Obama's lead is insurmountable.

"Impossible for Obama To Lose His Lead" --> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jwd88C25J-0

[Taxmyth]

161. This is America

nothing is impossible.

[SeattleGirl]

132. Talking down to people does not help you.

:thumbsdown: :thumbsdown:

[Taxmyth]

162. If that's the way you feel

so be it. Taking my words so personally speaks more to ones self image than anything in the words I wrote today.

[SeattleGirl]

164. My self-image is just fine, thank you.

And you ARE talking down to people. I think you can present your points without doing that.

[Taxmyth]

181. I'm happy to hear that

The use of the word "children" seems to have encouraged some to think that this post was a PERSONAL affront to THEM. What is it about the word "children" that offends them so? In GD: P as a whole, that word could be used and would be entirely appropriate given the tenor of the posts there no matter the age. If the word "children" is what has caused your believing that this post was "talking down" to you (you cannot speak for others, only for yourself), you have to consider the reasons why.

Now this is just a hypothesis on my part but I would think those offended most by the use of that word are comparatively young. Certainly younger than I am. And their outrage is directed towards me not recognizing them as "adults" and "mature" which is probably a situation that they are either just now coming to grips with from dealings with their own Parents or they are not yet secure in their own minds that they really are "adults" and "mature".

Certainly someone who is confident in their self image as an adult would not be offended by that word. They would recognize the word "children" for what it actually was; not applicable to them.

Thank you for taking the time to voice your sentiments. Peace.

Edited to replace the darn smilie that appeared instead of the P

[anigbrowl]

135. One of the many reasons you're wrong (mathematically)

We know from our reading that Y is composed of two subgroups: Pledged delegates and Super delegates. We will assign the subgroup of Pledged delegates the value of A and we will assign the subgroup of Super delegates the value of B. Our equations now look like this:

1714 + (X + Y) = 2024 - (A + B) and 1584 + (X + Y) = 2024 - (A + B)

We know from our reading that the Pledged delegates variable A will be defined at a later date and will be easily determined at that date. What about the Super Delegate variable B? Now our equation becomes even more difficult. We also know from our reading that some of the Super delegates have thrown their support towards either Barack or Hillary and others will follow before we can determine the value of A. We will assign this subgroup the variable of C. But what of the others? We will assign the remaining Superdelegates the value of D. Now our equations look like this:

1714 + (X + Y) = 2024 - (A + B) + (C + D) and 1584 + (X + Y) = 2024 - (A + B) + (C + D)


A represents pledged delegates. OK
B represents super delegates. OK
C represents super delegates that have already declared.
D represents undeclared super delegates.

But when you say (A + B) + (C + D), you're counting the super delegates twice, because you've defined B as equal to C + D. What you meant was A + (C + D). This is an elementary mistake, but since you describe these equations as 'difficult' I guess you just overestimated your own mathematical skills.

Of course, I recognize that your post is an elaborate way of saying 'it's not over, because nobody knows for certain what uncommitted super delegates will do' - which is true enough as far as it goes. Your big problem, though, is that Hillary Clinton needs to convince a lot more super delegates than Barack Obama does.

[phrigndumass]

143. We only need to see two numbers: 65 and 80

65 - 65 is the number of remaining superdelegates needed for Senator Obama to put the nomination out of reach of the Clinton campaign. The pledged delegates in the remaining primaries will carry him the rest of the way. Probability of happening: 90%

80 - 80% of the remaining superdelegates need to agree with each other and endorse Senator Clinton for her to reach nomination, on top of the pledged delegates she will gain in the remaining primaries. Probability of happening: 10%

:hi:

[FlyingSquirrel]

144. This is cute.

Makes me wanna kick This thread, in which many of the variables are solved for and the remaining variable, when input at the highest level, still does not overturn the pledged delegate lead.

[Taxmyth]

168. Nice thread

well done and good luck.

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

148. Wow...

You're quite the condescending little fuck, aren't you?




P.S. You might want to retake high school algebra...

[Taxmyth]

169. WOW

you really took that personally. More an indicator of your own self image than it is anything I wrote. Good luck with that.

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

281. That's all you've got?

A variation on "You're one. What am I?"

Perhaps an "I'm rubber, you're glue" would have been more appropos...

[ORDem]

150. Thank you mommy. I see you are just as condescending, trite, and dense as she is. nt

[Taxmyth]

170. I'm not your mommy

but judging from what you wrote you may have issues there. Good luck with that.

[Jamastiene]

166. 0bamaites 0wned.

:kick: Recommended, btw. :thumbsup:

[Taxmyth]

171. Thanks

Actually, it was pointed out several times that my equations were incorrect because they didn't have as many variables as were really needed :-)

I got a huge kick out of that.

[beandoc]

177. Taxmyth, you need less variables. Not more!

While assigning more variables to your initial equation may seem to clarify your first point, that is not the fatal flaw in your logic (see post #90).
You have attempted to assign multiple letters to the same variable when you actually need less. See posts #28,36, 48, 111, and 141 et al. I think post 111 does a great job of trying to explain this, and I'll take it a step further.

You need 2, AND ONLY 2, variables in your equation.

1) the number of pledged delegates won by Candidate A
2) the number of superdelegates won by Candidate A

Since there is a finite and known number of remaining pledged and super delegates, the number of each won by Candidate B is directly related to the number won by candidate A and is no longer an independent variable.

Example (using 408 as the number of remaining pledged delegates and 307 as the number of remaining superdelegates)

Number of pledged delegates to be won by Obama = X
Number of superdelegates to be won by Obama = Y

Number of pledged delegates to be won by Clinton = 408 -X
Number of superdelegates to be won by Obama = 307 - Y

Therefore:
Number of delegates Obama will have = 1714 + X + Y
Number of delegates Clinton will have = 1584 + (408 - X) + (307 - Y)

2 variables. That's it. You can switch Clinton with Obama and it still only comes out to 2 variables. It is the math. It is that simple. Trying to complex it up does not help her chances, but thank you for playing.

[Taxmyth]

206. Excellent response

That's an A for class participation. It is my theory that in order to assign the Super delegates that there a number of variables involved in how they will make their final decision which was the message I was trying to convey. I agree with the presentation you have made but in order to determine the actual number of Super delgates assigned to either candidate then those variables have to be considered. If the nomination process does not reach the convention as a result of one candidate or the other dropping out, then the equation is easy to solve. Mind you, that is one candidate or the other though most have a hypothesis as to which candidate that will be.

If the process gets us to the convention, the variables involved will be very complex. As complex as human nature can be. The overall point I was trying to make is that the math involved is not as simple as some posters would lead us to believe and even with the addition of two variables, as you have shown, the fact remains that they ARE variables and not yet defined.

Thanks for taking the time to post that, it made for good reading.

[ProSense]

174. A little advanced math,

reality based

[Taxmyth]

185. again, estimates do not define variables

only the range in which they are EXPECTED to fall. The might fall within that range and they might not.

[mudesi]

175. Stupidest post of the century

For more than one reason.

[Taxmyth]

186. I've seen far worse

but thank you for playing.

[paulk]

179. you forgot to factor in FL and MI

The number isn't 2024 when you add their delegates.

[Taxmyth]

187. True

See how difficult this problem really is? It is definitely NOT as simple as many have tried to lead us to believe.

[Asgaya Dihi]

180. I got as far as "Pay attention now children."

When the first line in the post is condescending and childish in attitude I hold little hope for the rest of the post having anything more intelligent or relevant to add to the issue, there are many well educated and well written people on both sides who are a better investment of our limited time. I spent years on this board with an empty ignore list, never used it more than a day or two at a time to get a break from an idiot. These days I've got a half dozen or so semi permanent residents, at least until the campaign is over, and I wish even that wasn't needed. All posters who insist on treating others in a disrespectful manner or who can't get past the jr high level of debate and tactics. Waahmbulance would do it, insisting the person with the clear lead is the one who should drop out might, others of the sort. Not this one yet though.

How much luck to do really expect to have in changing anyones mind by letting them know how little you think of them before you've even started? And what possible reason would anyone have for reading it? You're preaching to your own choir at best. At worst you're doing your candidate real harm and reinforcing the already well established impression of aggression and ego in that campaign.

[Taxmyth]

196. As I've said before

I treat both candidates with respect, using their elected titles or their given names (though I did call Senator Obama "Barry" on one or two posts). I do not use derogatory terms towards supporters of one candidate or the other (though if you feel the term "children" is derogatory then that says more to your own self image than the word as it is used). I've been treated in a disrespectful manner multiple times in threads throughout these posts and my responses, while maybe not genteel, are certainly not without a modicum of respect for the person voicing their opinion. I do not use foul language as I have confidence in my vocabulary and feel I am able to convey the same message without resorting to vulgarities.

There is no changing anyones minds at this point on this forum about their chosen candidate. The Primary process has not ended and there are multiple factors that will need to be considered before the process IS complete. Only point I was trying to make.

[Asgaya Dihi]

204. Now calm down, child.

How does that strike you? Nothing at all condescending about that? And now you're into the "says more about you than me" bit. Nice.

You perfectly exemplify the problem with the Clinton campaign from start to finish. If they don't see it that way then it's just not real and doesn't matter. They didn't care what their original critics said, must be partisan criticism, they didn't care what the first Supers to defect after already declaring for Clinton thought, they must have caved to some kind of pressure. They didn't care what the Kennedy's or Richardson thought. Betrayal, Judas, and other comments of the sort covered that just fine. In fact it doesn't seem to matter what anyone thinks or what anyones reactions are to their methods because damn it, they are right. At least in their own minds.

You people seem to be missing a step here. I don't care what anyone has done to you, it's been done to others as well. Some jerk jumps us unfairly so we get pissed and do it to someone else, both sides have done it and it's no excuse for either. I don't care if you skip one insult while you use another or any of it. I DO care what direction this nation goes in though and it can't include those who refuse to listen in any way to their critics or refuse to adjust course in response to it. We've just had 7 closing on 8 years of someone who acts like that and the prospect of four more of that attitude under either party isn't attractive. If you're so convinced you had the better candidate but she's losing anyway maybe it's time to pay a little attention to why.

It doesn't matter if you agree or not, all it takes is for others to feel like that and you lose votes for it, followed by losing elections then the nomination for it. And that's exactly what happened. Suicide as a cause in the name of misplaced pride and a refusal to adjust to the reactions the campaign was bringing out.

[Taxmyth]

226. Whoa, slow down cowboy

I find nothing condescending in your usage of the word "child" because I do not feel it is applicable to me. Hence, it is ignored in my concious mind as well as subconcious and causes me no consternation.

Your attempting to use me as "proof" of the characteristics assigned to a larger group of people is offensive, however. I represent me, no one else. You represent you, no one else. That is known as self awareness, an integral part of being an adult. As an adult you learn that there are things in your life you can control and things in your life you can attempt to influence, but can never control. Politics falls under the latter category.

If you let yourself become angry over the things in your life you have no control over then you are destined for a very miserable life. Frustration is the word you will begin to use most often and if not that particular word then a synonym for it. Your use of the word "suicide" in your post reveals the frustration that you must be experiencing. I have no control over the election process. You have no control over the election process. We can attempt to influence the process but ultimately we must realize it is something we cannot control.

I have no doubt that you feel that your choice of candidates in this process is what is best for the Nation. That is your choice and something you can control. You must also understand that there will be others who do not see things the same way as you do, for many different reasons. This is something you can not control. Rage, anger, frustration will only cause problems for you. Learn to control what you can and that there are certain things you just can not control.

Peace.

[Asgaya Dihi]

231. As proof?

That's interesting. As an example sure, but not as proof. But that's the way you read it. Interesting.

I have a feeling that we're talking past each other instead of to each other. You're not hearing or reading what I'm actually saying but instead looking for some way to twist it into a win/lose or right/wrong thing. As an adult you also learn to understand that everyone doesn't see things like you do and that the impressions you leave matter as much as the impressions you intended. If they don't know your intent it can matter even more. And that example was drawn.

That's also called self awareness, recognizing the things you can influence and adjusting to make an actual impact instead of an empty gesture. Tends to come when we lose enough pride to recognize the difference between a gesture and a difference and aren't so concerned with things like "control".

You don't have to try to "control" things to try to have a positive influence and it doesn't take anger to recognize failed and damaging strategy so try to avoid further damage. If you don't think failed and damaging strat is the issue then you haven't been paying attention to the fall of both of our candidates approval ratings, the rise of both disapproval ratings, and the comparative advantage we're offering to McCain. If anger is an issue you're seeing here I think you're probably projecting a bit and a break might do you good. It at some point became personal for you.

This is called concern for a bad path being taken. Take the advice or leave it, I can't make you hear good sense or look at the real results of this crap. But nobody is going to tell me I shouldn't even point it out then try to lay it off on the anger or frustration of anyone but themselves, not without having a mirror held up to them.

[Taxmyth]

249. This is in no way meant to be derogatory

It is my assumption after READING (and I read every word) of your replies, that english is your second language. (maybe even 3rd or 4th)

First, if that is the case, then you are to be applauded.

We may be talking "past" each other because the words we are using with each other are truly being misunderstood. We are on the same team, we want the same thing. We just think there should be different Captains for the team.

Peace.

[Asgaya Dihi]

255. And you wonder why

The Clinton campaign is losing because of this, pure and simple. From the top to the bottom their supporters can't think of a better way to make themselves look better than to pull this type of thing with others. They are sexist, biased, poor at logic, can't speak the language, or anything else you can possibly grasp at to come to any conclusion other than you're losing the election for a reason.

You just didn't offer much anyone wanted and the more they see of it the less they seem to like it. Sure, you can tear the other guy down a bit too like that, but all that accomplishes is both of them losing.

And with no better tactic than that to resort to you expect people to believe that you're the best ones for the job.

Not that it's a damned bit of your business but if you want to know anything about who you're talking to you might want to ask. http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=216&topic_id=3703&mesg_id=3722

That's the first 17 years or so, there have been 27 more since and much of them has been spent trying to change what's described there in one way or another. Trying to make a real difference instead of a gesture. Your condescension is not only misplaced but so wrong and unneeded that it would be funny if you could see how damned foolish you were for it. You've assumed reasons for opinions, assumed who I support or why, assumed from start to finish here and you haven't been right once yet. I'm no damned English professor partly due to my background and I haven't tried to be one, competent in the subject if I've anyone intelligent enough to debate it with will do. Too bad you can't make the effort to be one of them. And yeah, I'm a clumsy typist. Might have something to do with the three severed tendons when I worked construction and the fact that the two they fixed were done badly and one couldn't be repaired at all. Sue me.

Neither of these candidates promise or offer much on ANY level that's useful to me or my cause, I don't much give a damned about either and I don't think either much gives a damned about what I do. There was no choice to make or a reason to make one until one of them convinced me, through their own actions, that they were destructive not only to the party and our chances of getting anyone elected but potentially destructive to the nation if they get elected and use those same tactics with friends and allies. Search my posts. Finding glowing "he's so great" posts about anyone? Anyone at all?

I'm not the fan club type. Not for anyone, and not ever. A compliment or criticism on a specific act sure, but I'm not much of a joiner and never have been. Issues related to them trying to force me into gangs I'd guess.

In short, if you planned to prove by this series of posts that you have an ego, like to assume a lot, can't manage to make a point without couching it in comments about your opponant, you've done a bang up job of it. Congrats. If you planned to do your candidate any good though you failed. Badly.

[Taxmyth]

266. Dan, here's the deal

The reason I suggested english might be a second language is because your writing sucks. After learning more about you I see that we are not very different. When you type something, before you hit the "Post message" button, go through it at least once, and twice if you are so inclined. You will find grammatical and spelling errors that are easily corrected and what you have written will be more easily understood. I am not an English professor. My writing sucks as well. But after a few thousand postings on message boards I learned that to re-read what I wrote makes a big difference. If your going to take the time to put your thoughts on paper then take the time to make sure that they make sense. And from what I read about your interests, then you, of all people, should know how hard it is to transcribe exactly what it is you are thinking.

I actually know more about you then you know about me. Suffice it to say we have similar objectives and similar thoughts about the Democratic nomination. And yes, I do have a healthy ego as I see it as essential to survive. We are NOT opponents, just two individuals with different ideas for the future. Slow down, calm down.

Peace.

[Asgaya Dihi]

272. Nice thought, but a bit late

I'm sorry, but yes. We are very different. If I have a problem with someones position or actions I'll attack that position or action and don't feel much of a reason to even comment on the rest of it most of the time. Yeah, I'll note an ego or something if it's staring me in the face and they've been free with comments about me but I'd really rather discuss the issue and not assume.

We are in no way alike.

That aside, when I plan to write something for public consumption I do just fine. Jack Cole, head of LEAP, commented when we first had contact on my letter to my Senator

Hi Dan,
You are an exceptionally gifted wordsmith. This is one of the best letters on drug policy reform I have ever read. Thanks for being there.


Peace,
Jack

There is very little anyone could ever say that will mean more to me than that, you're just assuming again. I know what I can do, I just don't care to make a "presentation" with every post and when I'm in a place like this it's nice to assume we're a crowd who is more interested in issues than in form. I relax more here, I work elsewhere where they don't already know most of this stuff. Given the above and many years of other comments of the sort on issues ranging from the drug war to media consolidation your opinion and advice is less than meaningless. They are both unneeded and unwanted, they in no way relate to the issue at hand and are just a distraction. You're making a decent effort after the fact of trying to make it look useful rather than just condescending, but too little too late and as far as I can tell for all the wrong reasons. Probably should have just discussed issues in the first place.

[jettison]

188. "Now children"

Condescending Spinny Spinnerson. You'll sway not a single Obama supporter with what you imagine passes at math, and fewer still with what you think passes for cleverness.

[Taxmyth]

197. Not my intention

People in GD: P have chosen sides and no one is going to sway them from one side to the other here with their words. The original posting was written to show that the mathematics involved in selecting one or the other candidate in the Democratic Primary is very complex and not as simple as some would make it seem.

And as I've said before, now at least a dozen times, your taking umbrage at the use of the word "children" says more about your own self image than it does about anything I've written.

[jettison]

202. Defensive

That is now you on this thread.... and how could you not be? If I just got lambasted 25 ways to Sunday by every other poster, I'd probably be a little bit defensive as well. But one thing is clear, I doubt that you address the denizens of a political (or math for that matter) messageboard as "children" anytime again in the near future. Referring to someone as a child means commenting on your own perceived superiority on a subject matter. It is not a term of endearment as you are very aware no matter how you'd like to spin it now in hindsight.

This is like Clinton saying "shame on you!" to Obama when Obama bothers to mention that Clinton has engaged in something shameful.

Rapist to victim: "Shame on you for going to the police about me.... You've ruined my life now! You jerk!"

[Taxmyth]

251. Equating my usage of the word children with a rapist is wrong

And it speaks more to your misogony than anything I have written. The word "children" does not denote violence against women, in fact it is generally recognized as a positive word to most. How can anyone use the term rapist in such a light manner? What you have written is disgusting and you should truly be ashamed of yourself.

[jettison]

285. You should be ashamed of yourself

For failing Critical Thinking 101, and imagining for even half a second that I was equating you with a rapist. No wonder Hillary's propaganda machine works on you... "rapist" is not an expeletive. It can be used thoughtfully, and it was in this case.

[mythyc]

189. go fuck yourself you condescending superior self-righteous anal retentive piece of

shit

ignore

[Taxmyth]

198. such anger

Wow. You really need to consider why you got so angry at a few simple words. The fact you found the post "condescending", and undoubtedly it was the use of the word "children" speaks volumes as to your own self image. Good luck with that.

[Stinky The Clown]

194. I'll give ya kudos for creativity ........

I also pretty well understand your logic.

I think its faulty.

I think in solving for your more remote/unknown variables, the only possible outcome is still what we already learned from our reading: Clinton needs to win the next nine contests with about 70% of the pledged delegates in each. I see that as an impossibly tall order for anyone.

The root word of 'impossibly' is ..... impossible.

[Taxmyth]

200. Thank you for that

The equations were faulty as a result of using too few variables to state them. It was actually fun reading some of the better trained "mathematicians" who corrected me on that but it really just proves the point I was trying to make. It may not be the "Pledged delegate" total that is the deciding factor. It may come down to popular vote totals as well. Florida and Michigan still need to be decided. And who knows what will happen between now and when one candidate or the other decides to drop out or up until the convention if neither drops out.

In any event, this is the most exciting Democratic Primary I have ever witnessed and I've been through a number of them.

Peace.

[intaglio]

201. It would help if you could actually do math

Being condecending is always easier if you do not make childish mistakes

[Taxmyth]

228. We've already been through this in class

Yes, forgetting to add the additional variables needed to make the equations correct was a mistake. It was corrected earlier in class and used to point out that the hypothesis proposed with the original post is true. The math involved is very complex and not as simple as some would have you believe.

And once again, if you found the original post to be "condecending" than that speaks more to your own self image than anything I typed today.

Now do your homework.

[mattclearing]

203. It figures a Hillary supporter would consider 9th Grade Algebra Advanced Mathematics. n/t

[Taxmyth]

229. Compared to some Obama supporters using 1st grade math

I remember doing the addition and subtraction handouts in 1st grade. And there have been many posts from Senator Obama's supporters theorizing that the math involved in the Democratic Party primary process was as simple as that. So yes, compared to 1st grade mathematics, 9th grade mathematics IS advanced.

Thank you for playing.

[mattclearing]

294. We'll see whose math holds up in August. n/t

[Hola]

207. Basic Maths

"1714 + (X + Y) = 2024 and 1584 + (X + Y) = 2024. We have already determined the value of X but how do we determine the value of Y? "

Ummm, if you've already determined the value X (as 310 and 440 respectively) then the value of Y is obviously 0.

Basic math.

[Taxmyth]

230. I see you did not bother to read the assigned text also

We've covered that in class already. That's an F for not being prepared.

[Gore1FL]

210. Wow, as condesending as Hillary

and still doesn't say anything.

Is that you Harold, Terry, Mark?

Here is everything very simplified:

Obama 2025 - 1720 = 305

Hillary 2025 - 1590 = 435

Remaining Super Delegates = 300
Estimated Remaining pledged delegates = 408

Total delegates remaining: 708.

435/708 = 61%

Of the contests remaining, She is significantly behind in the biggest, about even in the second biggest. Assuming she wins those by the same margins as PA, she would net 18 while taking another 187 off the table.

in that scenario, with remaining delegates, she would still need 332 of 521 = 64%

Every time she "wins" like this, the less likely she is to become the nominee.

And in reality, she is going to take a few losses in the upcoming contests.

[Taxmyth]

232. Oh my, another error filled assignment turned in

What you have shown us is the value that is needed and not how that value will be determined. Had you been to class on time or had looked at the other childrens papers that have already been turned in, you would have discovered that already. That's an F for this assignment for you.

And once again (sigh), your believing the original post was "condesending" speaks more to your self image than anything that I have typed here today.

[Gore1FL]

286. Considering your work

You are the last person to be this obnoxious.

And no, condescending (nice catch on my typo) is you tone, not my belief that you are right about your high stature.

[damonm]

215. This is ADVANCED...

Advanced failure.
When you say

1714 + (X + Y) = 2024 - (A + B) and 1584 + (X + Y) = 2024 - (A + B)

You fail to account for X in your equation, as you've defined Y=(A + B). This in addition to your tone of condescension yields a grade of:

[Taxmyth]

233. While you seem to show an aptitude for the concepts involved

Your failure to read the notes previously submitted by other children and readily available to you forces me to give you an F for this assignment. Or is it just an aptitude for cutting and pasting .jpg images? In either case, your grade is an F.

And (sigh, again) your feeling that this post was condescending to you speaks more of your self image than it does to anything I've written here today.

[damonm]

282. But I get an A for pointing out epic failure such as yours.

As do MANY others here.

And your tone has nothing to do with me, or anything save you behaving like an arrogant ass.

[moc]

218. You know, when you start out having the same variable represent DIFFERENT numbers, that's a clue

that you don't know shit about math.

FYI - read SLOWLY, very SLOWLY, 'kay? ----

If X + 1714 = 2024 then

X + 1584 CAN NOT EQUAL 2024,

because (wait for it now)

1714 does not equal 1584!


Clear enough for you? If you're going to condescend to people about math, it's a good idea to know a little bit about it yourself. Otherwise, you just look like an ass.

[moc]

220. Taxmyth, here's a better mathematical explanation of how Hillary can win the nomination.

[Taxmyth]

239. Miracles DO happen and that's why the math is so complex

Make no mistake about that.

[Taxmyth]

235. And once again, another student late for class

who neglected to read the notes the other children have so easily provided. We've already covered this earlier in class. While I appreciate your participation I am still forced to give out another F on this assignment.

And once again (long deep sigh) your perception of my words as being condescending speaks more to your self image than anything I have written here.

[moc]

242. You're handing out Fs?

That's laughable.

I teach graduate level statistics. I'm 15+ years post doctorate. I have no problem with my self image when it comes to math.

I doubt that with the lack of math skills you've displayed here you'd score high enough on the GRE to gain admission to our program.

Seriously, your condescension makes you look like an ass.

[Taxmyth]

253. and your words paint you as the same.

Haven't ever taken the GRE but I have no doubt I would score high enough to attend any academic institution I choose. You do know that you can study for that particular examination and it is not only composed of a mathematics portion, correct? Seriously, your seeing my original post as being condescending speaks volumes as to your abilities in reading comprehension AND self image. Good day.

[walldude]

222. This might help your math:

Why is everything the Hillary campaign says about the numbers based on a hypothetical? Oh yeah.. because she's losing.

[Taxmyth]

236. I love Calvin and Hobbes

I'm not with the Hillary campaign though I think she is the superior choice for President of the United States. The reason the numbers seem hypothetical is because they have not yet been defined.

[walldude]

240. Well numbers that haven't yet been defined are hypothetical.

They don't seem like they are... they are.

[Taxmyth]

267. absolutely

and that is what makes the equation regarding WHO will be the Democratic Party nominee for President so difficult.

[undeterred]

223. Hillary has no mathematical chance. Hide thread.

[Taxmyth]

237. Your hypothesis is noted

but unfortunately wrong. She does have a mathematical chance because she is still in the race. The "hide thread" thing has me wondering though, why the need to post that?

[OzarkDem]

234. Exellent! Thank you!

:rofl:

[Taxmyth]

238. I'm having a blast with this one....

Read some of the threads. My mouth is hurting from smiling so much.

[proud2BlibKansan]

245. Lost me at "children"

But I do find this just a perfect reflection of Hillary and her campaign. Talking down to DEMOCRATS (and who the fuck do you think is going to be voting for her in November, if not DEMOCRATS?!?)

No, the nomination is not OWED to Hillary. She has to EARN it and so far, she has not. Neither has Obama but the math that you apparently don't comprehend indicates that he is way ahead of her and she has about a zero chance to overtake him.

[Taxmyth]

256. Reading comprehension seems to be a weakness here on DU

I guess if it isn't marked with a little .gif, the readers here at DU can't comprehend the style in which something is written. And your proudly displaying a KU icon. I'm going to venture a guess here and say that the icon is there NOT because you graduated from that institution but because you live in proximity to where they play basketball. If I am incorrect, please let me know so I can get in touch with Dr. Carothers and voice my concerns.

[proud2BlibKansan]

263. And even more condescension!

You are really on a roll here. :rofl:

Yes I am a proud Jayhawk. And everyone here in Kansas knows you can't claim to be a Jayhawk unless you are an alum.

But please, contact Dr. Carothers. I am sure he sits around all day just waiting for tools from Hillary's campaign to report improper internet use of the Jayhawk.

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

[Taxmyth]

271. It's not the improper use of the Jayhawk

it's the lack of reading comprehension that bothers me.

[proud2BlibKansan]

283. LOL I have a masters degree in education

and MY reading comprehension is most definitely NOT a problem.

But dream on.

[milkyway]

248. I couldn't get past your condescending elitism.

[Taxmyth]

257. My, but Senator Obama supporters definitely seem to have a problem with their own self image

at least that is the way it appears judging from some of the responses on this original post.

[Fox Mulder]

250. Talk down much, don't you?

[Taxmyth]

258. another deep sigh

If you percieved my words as your being "talked down" to then your own self image is to blame. Certainly not anything I have written here today. Reading comprehension seems to be a problem for many supporters of Senator Obama, at least judging from todays responses.

[Fox Mulder]

261. I don't think calling people "children" will get you any favors.

:eyes:

Oh, btw, Dennis Kucinich was my first choice for President, not Obama.

[Taxmyth]

270. Kucinich would have been mine

but there was no way he could ever be elected as President. And that's a shame. Why on earth would you take the word "children" so personally? You must know that whatever I wrote was not intended solely for you.

[hulka38]

252. 1+1=2, Hillary helped get us into Iraq, and you're a fricking idiot.

[Taxmyth]

259. Your attempt to simplify the equation is wrong

I suggest you read more to increase your vocabulary and to inform yourself.

[Blarch]

254. WTF ?

Come on puff puff pass ...stop bogarting.

btw, your math is pretty hacky, even my dog is laughing.

[Taxmyth]

260. judging by your usage of a vulgar acronymn

that the picture above shows an area in which you might have expert knowledge. Care to elaborate for the rest of us?

[Blarch]

278. You are a hack.

your 'equations' can mean anything. Do you really think the race is that complicated ? ..lets be honest now, Hillary lost, and you need therapy.

[Jed Dilligan]

262. You lost me at "children." nt

[Taxmyth]

268. and once again, a reading comprehension problem

Not everything you read is directed at you personally. In fact, probably NONE of it is. Unless it's from a relative.

[Jed Dilligan]

280. No comprehension problem here.

The problem is the condescending tone of the writing.

[Taxmyth]

276. What a blast

Thanks for all the comments and/or rec's. My intention was to show that the math to determine the Democratic nominee for President was not as easy as some of Senator Obama's supporters had suggested and I've had many of his supporters show, that indeed, the math to solve this equation is extremely difficult and filled with multiple unknowns.

This class has ended for the semester and I look forward to seeing you all next time.

[hulka38]

279. Dude, you're dumb - let's just move on.

[Danger Mouse]

277. Right from the 'pay attention now children' nastiness at the start...

i dismissed your post as not worth reading.
If you lead with a fucking insult, don't expect to win over any Obama supporters.
Cram your condescension.

[Mother Of Four]

284. Normally I'm not this snarky-

But Snark Deserves Snark.

PLEASE- Quit playing with the clips when attempting math, you could hurt yourself.




"An idiot always seems a genius to another idiot"

[yourout]

288. Taxmyth + Post = Ignore List.

[Eric Condon]

289. And your homework for tonight, Boomers,

is to stop trying to recapture your long-faded youth by listening to "Gimme Some Lovin'" and accept that you've become just another bitter old square terrified of change (just like the ones you hated in the '60s), and then wake the fuck up and realize THE RACE IS OVER. Your candidate's Rovian, triangulating BULLSHIT has lost her the election and (hopefully) ended her worthless political career forever.

If you can talk down to us "children" who are supporting Obama, then expect to get it just like you give.

[Lucinda]

290. LOL

:thumbsup:

[krkaufman]

292. wow. There's 20 minutes of your life you'll never get back.

Sorry you had to spend it in that way, kicking a dead horse.

The superdelegates aren't going to overrule the elected pledged delegate majority, and are just waiting for the voting to end, and will get behind Obama at that point.

As for the dream of persuading the superdelegates that Obama isn't electable, it should be noted that Hillary's "kitchen sink" strategy has sunk her numbers more than Obama's, and she's become even more unelectable than before the voting started.