generous





June 26, 2023

In a recent day, I made this equation, excluding the vaccine number to get an answer:
0.009 x 0.50 x 0.20 x .10 = 0.00009
0.009 x 0.50 x 0.20 = 0.0009

Likewise, the actual statistic number without the equation's vaccine number is estimated at:
0.00005 / 10 = 0.0005

When you calculate both, by multiplying these 2 answers to the people born in the U.S. in 1978:

A)
3,250,373 x .0009 = 2,925.3357
3,250,373 / 2,925 = 1,111

B)
3,250,373 x .0005 = 1,625.1865
3,250,373 / 1,625. = 2,000

You find a difference of 900 between the 2 numbers, from my estimation and actual numbers:
2000 - 1,100 = 900

________________________

June 24, 2023

Is 900 a bad thing? 900 is a good thing.
Why?
Most people want to find it's true that Mr. P. has the illness.
Hence, 900 works for Mr. P.
900 does not work against Mr. P.
You can see it as, 900 more people to prove him right.

To explain;
We know, I used .00009 instead of .00005 to eventually get the 900 difference.
.00009 > .00005
My guestimate number is higher than the actual number.
Higher numbers, rather than lower numbers, will more likely prove him right.

Hypothesize by 2 example statements:
A) 6,000 people in 7,000 people got the illness.
B) 1 person in 7,000 people got the illness.

The higher number of people, it's more likely any 1 person in the group of 7,000 has the illness.
Also, from the group of people subtract the number of people who got it:
7,000 - 6,000 = 1000
The smaller the 'gap' between the 2 numbers means it's more likely to happen in a group.

My 900 mistake, is for counting 'generously'. It's a good mistake.
'Generous' means counting with higher or 'much' higher numbers than the actual or true numbers.
Counting generously creates the higher likelihood the equation will prove Mr. P's illness is correct. To use 'generous numbers' in the equation creates a generous answer (but sufficiently accurate for the purpose) that is well above the 'accurate numbers' and it's fitting equation that creates the accurate answer that's hidden and nested inside well below it (the elevated generous numbers), so the generous answer above it safeguards the hidden accurate answer below it, where below is the level of accuracy that at any time to exceed it by lowering or diminishing the actual numbers will deteriorate the accurate answer.
Anyone forbades to lower the accurate answer.

As far as I can tell, the equation created is made of accurate numbers and 'generous' numbers. It's setup to work for him.
For an existing real illness:
A) The accurate equation should prove the illness did happen.
B) The 'generous' equation should definitely prove the illness did happen. Also, if the illness is not true, the generous equation may still prove the illness is true (when the accurate equation would surely prove it false).

However, the calculation of the generous equation proves the opposite.
The equation makes a good estimation = 1 person in 3 billion people.

Here the 'gap' is 2.9 billion - 1/3 of the world population.
If I'm counting with both accurate and 'generous' numbers, it means the true probability of getting the illness in his case is about 1 in 3 billion or greater.

________________________

June 25, 2023

To better explain the answer of 900, validating an answer by the relationship of 2 subjects, is the same as the Urkenbloc and Noomerate example.
( In pages "7%".)
It concludes, if the likely event with a very high probability doesn't happen, the rare event with a very low probability would not happen either. When the likely event first happens, naturally is when the unlikely event follows.


I'll say it differently for #2.
To use very 'generous numbers' it gives an illness a greater chance to likely exist but here the development still won't appear, then to use the 'actual numbers' for an unlikely illness that rarely exists then here the development won't appear either.

I'll thrice repeat it better.
The result is, for the illness if you prove with the more likely 'generous equation' it's not true, it usually proves with the less likely 'actual equation" it's not true either.



________________________

-- June 26, 2023, 12pm PDT
~ Update: December 5, 2023, 3pm - added 2 paragraphs.