# Math and Statistics flaws in Texas lawsuit to overturn the election

#### LifeIn

##### Active member
The lawsuit brought to the Supreme Court by Texas and supported by 126 Republican members of Congress, 19 Attorneys General, and one Donald Trump, contains a ridiculously-flawed mathematical analysis by economist Charles Ciccetti. The flaws are brilliantly explained by British math guy, Matt Parker, in this video:

#### Authentic Nouveau

##### Well-known member
Reminds us so much how people with very little math and no statistics fall for the Mannipulator Mike Mann.

As a liberal, you have no comment on Biden telling us 200 million died with China Flu?

#### Temujin

##### Well-known member
Reminds us so much how people with very little math and no statistics fall for the Mannipulator Mike Mann.

As a liberal, you have no comment on Biden telling us 200 million died with China Flu?
Yes it was a slip of the tongue. Only a total moron would try to make it anything else. Was it daft? Yes. Was it as daft as "covfefe"? No.

#### Carol

##### Member
Yeah the smoke detector thing was really "brilliant".

##### Active member
Reminds us so much how people with very little math and no statistics fall for the Mannipulator Mike Mann.

As a liberal, you have no comment on Biden telling us 200 million died with China Flu?
Ah, I see you are making comment on a person's mathematical ability while having no ability yourself. Rather hypocritical wouldn't you say?

It should be noted that you have made no comment on the actual maths, because you lack the ability to do so, instead you try to deflect by bringing up an irrelevant slip of the toungue.

Tell you what, here is another chance for you to demonstrate a basic understanding of simple mathematics:

f(x) = 9x^3 + 4x^2 - 6x - 3

Find f '(x)

You will run away again, because you can't answer the simple question. In fact, I doubt you even understand what the question is asking.

#### Andy Sist

##### Active member
The lawsuit brought to the Supreme Court by Texas and supported by 126 Republican members of Congress, 19 Attorneys General, and one Donald Trump, contains a ridiculously-flawed mathematical analysis by economist Charles Ciccetti. The flaws are brilliantly explained by British math guy, Matt Parker, in this video:
Wow. That's an excellent breakdown of the fatal flaws in this latest attempt by crybaby Trumpians to deny the reality they lost the election. The only real question is Cicchetti really that incompetent or (more probably) he was paid a good sum by the Republicans to come up with bogus probability numbers they were desperate to hear. So this document is actually good evidence of Republicans committing deliberate fraud.

Last edited:

#### Andy Sist

##### Active member
Yeah the smoke detector thing was really "brilliant".
Did you at least understand the point of the analogy of measuring the heights of the school kids vs. measuring the heights of professional basketball players? You can't assume a single uniform population when measuring the two very different groups. That's the blunder (or willful dishonesty) Cicchetti made.

Last edited:

#### Authentic Nouveau

##### Well-known member
The liberals not bright enough to follow this case. It was rejected on "standing" not "merit"
They have no clue what that means.

#### LifeIn

##### Active member
The liberals not bright enough to follow this case. It was rejected on "standing" not "merit"
They have no clue what that means.
And here we see A.N. resorting to a rant against liberals rather than address the substantive statistical flaws any first-year statistics student would recognize. He says the case was dismissed on standing, not on merit. But he refuses to even discuss the merit of the case, which Matt Parker utterly destroyed. As for Andy's question, I don't think Cicchetti is incompetent. In fact, it is his very competence that enabled him to construct a plausible-sounding statistical argument (plausible to those who do not understand statistics.) Matt Parker illustrated that perfectly in his construction of an equally flawed (albeit deliberately, tongue-in-cheek) proof of the one in a quadrillion chance at the end of his video.

#### The Pixie

##### Active member
... As for Andy's question, I don't think Cicchetti is incompetent. In fact, it is his very competence that enabled him to construct a plausible-sounding statistical argument (plausible to those who do not understand statistics.) ...
For Cicchetti to put his name to something so clearly flawed is very strange. He must have realised people would study this and find the flaws; he is trashing his own reputation with this.

#### Authentic Nouveau

##### Well-known member
For Cicchetti to put his name to something so clearly flawed is very strange. He must have realised people would study this and find the flaws; he is trashing his own reputation with this.
You offer flaws by the boat load. Your global warming generates flawed, (junk) predictions 50 solid years.

You don't have the flaws you think you have.

Here are flaws

200 million died "by the time i finish this talk"

#### The Pixie

##### Active member
You offer flaws by the boat load. Your global warming generates flawed, (junk) predictions 50 solid years.

You don't have the flaws you think you have.

Here are flaws

200 million died "by the time i finish this talk"
Have you actually read Cicchetti's report? That is the subject of this thread, Authie. Either you think it is right or you think it is wrong. Or you lack the mental ability to decide.

Do you have the bravery to stand up and be counted? Or are you just running interference?