Do you think there's value in that? If so, I may do it if I have some time.
It wouldn't be too difficult to do it empirically. Build a database of all Q drops & Trump tweets. Randomly sample pairs of the two, and label as related in content or not. Sample enough pairs to your desired level of accuracy.
The second step would be the most time consuming. Manual human labeling would be the most accurate, but it could be time prohibitive if you're sampling tens of thousands of pairs.
But an automated 'relatedness' score could assigned based off of edit distance weighted by the commonality of combinations of words occurring together. Also, a word meaning space could be trained a la Word2Vec which could pick up on similar meanings in words even when the words aren't exactly the same.
(I'm finishing up a Ph.D. in computer science and I'd much rather work on this than my own dissertation for a few days, lmao.)
But, my gut feeling is that none of this is necessary. Sticking around here long enough is enough to assure anyone, even without pinning it down to an exact number, that the odds of it being a coincidence are astronomically low. And I say that as someone who's only really dug in to Q for about a week, lmao.
I'd be terribly curious to hear more of what you have to say.
I'm awful at math and don't really like it, so to have yet another math anon on-board here with us is great.
Very glad to hear you found that probability of coincidence is extremely low.....
Welcome aboard, u/orlando_pede !!!
Thanks for the welcome! I just want to clarify that I haven't formally computed anything, but I think anyone that has two braincells to rub together and is even remotely quantitatively oriented cannot deny, upon digging into the various Q proofs, that Q has been coordinating closely with Trump over the past 4+ years.
Everything else is up to debate, but that fact cannot be denied by any reasonable, informed person. I've personally chosen to swallow the red-pill in its entirety because of my own personal assessment of Trump's character, the content of Q drops, etc. But, an assessment of Q's motives (vs. merely concluding that he / they are not a LARP) now goes beyond the realm of what can be argued quantitatively, and I'll freely admit that. But even the evidence in favor of that is stronger than the contrary, in my opinion.
I definitely regret not digging into this from the very start.
Thanks for the welcome! I just want to clarify that I haven't formally computed anything, but I think anyone that has two braincells to rub together and is even remotely quantitatively oriented cannot deny, upon digging into the various Q proofs, that Q has been coordinating closely with Trump over the past 4+ years.
Everything else is up to debate, but that fact cannot be denied by any reasonable, informed person. I've personally chosen to swallow the red-pill in its entirety because of my own personal assessment of Trump's character, the content of Q drops, etc. But, an assessment of Q's motives (vs. merely concluding that he / they are not a LARP) now goes beyond the realm of what can be argued quantitatively, and I'll freely admit that. But even the evidence in favor of that is stronger than the contrary, in my opinion.
I definitely regret not digging into this from the very start.
Can someone tell me if this is mathematically possible?
Coincidentally, I cannot.
Do you think there's value in that? If so, I may do it if I have some time.
It wouldn't be too difficult to do it empirically. Build a database of all Q drops & Trump tweets. Randomly sample pairs of the two, and label as related in content or not. Sample enough pairs to your desired level of accuracy.
The second step would be the most time consuming. Manual human labeling would be the most accurate, but it could be time prohibitive if you're sampling tens of thousands of pairs.
But an automated 'relatedness' score could assigned based off of edit distance weighted by the commonality of combinations of words occurring together. Also, a word meaning space could be trained a la Word2Vec which could pick up on similar meanings in words even when the words aren't exactly the same.
(I'm finishing up a Ph.D. in computer science and I'd much rather work on this than my own dissertation for a few days, lmao.)
But, my gut feeling is that none of this is necessary. Sticking around here long enough is enough to assure anyone, even without pinning it down to an exact number, that the odds of it being a coincidence are astronomically low. And I say that as someone who's only really dug in to Q for about a week, lmao.
If things go south we will be targeted and censored. We could assemble and publish open source statistical data that proves Q and Trump are connected
I'd be terribly curious to hear more of what you have to say. I'm awful at math and don't really like it, so to have yet another math anon on-board here with us is great.
Very glad to hear you found that probability of coincidence is extremely low..... Welcome aboard, u/orlando_pede !!!
Thanks for the welcome! I just want to clarify that I haven't formally computed anything, but I think anyone that has two braincells to rub together and is even remotely quantitatively oriented cannot deny, upon digging into the various Q proofs, that Q has been coordinating closely with Trump over the past 4+ years.
Everything else is up to debate, but that fact cannot be denied by any reasonable, informed person. I've personally chosen to swallow the red-pill in its entirety because of my own personal assessment of Trump's character, the content of Q drops, etc. But, an assessment of Q's motives (vs. merely concluding that he / they are not a LARP) now goes beyond the realm of what can be argued quantitatively, and I'll freely admit that. But even the evidence in favor of that is stronger than the contrary, in my opinion.
I definitely regret not digging into this from the very start.
Thanks for the welcome! I just want to clarify that I haven't formally computed anything, but I think anyone that has two braincells to rub together and is even remotely quantitatively oriented cannot deny, upon digging into the various Q proofs, that Q has been coordinating closely with Trump over the past 4+ years.
Everything else is up to debate, but that fact cannot be denied by any reasonable, informed person. I've personally chosen to swallow the red-pill in its entirety because of my own personal assessment of Trump's character, the content of Q drops, etc. But, an assessment of Q's motives (vs. merely concluding that he / they are not a LARP) now goes beyond the realm of what can be argued quantitatively, and I'll freely admit that. But even the evidence in favor of that is stronger than the contrary, in my opinion.
I definitely regret not digging into this from the very start.
Okay doomer
Where was there any semblance of dooming in my comment that you responded to?
"that the odds of it being a coincidence are astronomically low."