ok, I make a mistake. there is a law that any set of physical value (unbounded), will have the most significant digit respect a log law.
this case seems different. and also i should have guessed that vote don't respect that law, since it is bounded. however correlations, or indirect values, should respect that law 2012/3/17 Bastiaan Bergman <bastiaan.berg...@gmail.com> > LEAST significant digit. > On Mar 16, 2012 2:48 AM, "Xavier Luminous" <xavier.lumin...@googlemail.com> > wrote: > >> Off the top of my head I'd like to mention that Benford's Law is >> particularly good at rooting out cheaters. Basically, the most >> significant digit from a sets of naturally occurring data tends to >> follow a well known power law distribution. This is true for things >> like lengths of rivers, street addresses, amounts entered on your >> taxes, etc. >> >> I know they use this in voting already, but I'm not sure exactly how. >> Would be interesting to see how this works out in this particular >> case. >> >> >> On Fri, Mar 16, 2012 at 5:03 AM, James Bowery <jabow...@gmail.com> wrote: >> > The reason I'm posting this to vortex-l is that of all the candidates, >> the >> > only one that represents a serious threat to establishment science is >> Ron >> > Paul. >> > >> > The basic story is that a "signature" of "vote flipping" has turned up >> -- >> > and the beneficiary in every case of this signature has been Mitt >> Romney. >> > This analysis, if validated, could trigger the collapse of the Soviet, >> er, >> > American Empire. >> > >> > >> http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?363915-We-NEED-more-hands-on-deck.-Significant-evidence-of-Algorithmic-vote-flipping >> . >> > >> > The first message is a good synopsis of the current arguments. >> >>
