I think they are irrelevant to understanding the bilderberg group's agenda...
This intellectual blathering doesn't expose conspiracies, it is used to make them inexplicable. I am attempting to do the exact opposite.
WTF is the point of reading or writing crap like this?
We initially assume that for a given conspiracy, conspirators are in general dedicated for the most part to the concealment of their activity. We further assume that a leak of information from any conspirator is sufficient to expose the conspiracy and render it redundant—such leaks might be intentional (in the form of whistle-blowing or defection) or accidental (mistaken release of information). We concern ourselves only with potential intrinsic exposure of the conspiracy and do not consider for now the possibility that external agents may reveal the operation. Thus, it follows that the act of a conspiracy being exposed is a relatively rare and independent event. We can then apply Poisson statistics, and express the probability of at least one leak sufficient to lead to failure of the conspiracy where ϕ is the mean number of failures expected per unit time. This is in turn a function of number of conspirators with time N(t) and p, the intrinsic probability of failure per person per year. Then we may specify ϕ by writing ψ = 1 − p for brevity, the probability of conspiracy failure can be re-written as a function of time
As far as the equations themselves, I have no idea what they show, and given that I had to do some applied maths courses as part of my education, I suspect that 99.0% of people globally would find them as meaningless as I do!
"As far as the equations themselves, I have no idea what they show, and given that I had to do some applied maths courses as part of my education, I suspect that 99.0% of people globally would find them as meaningless as I do!"
Interesting.
Perhaps I'll make an explainer post about those equations. I'll be sure to drop a mention, in case you're interested.
For now, suffice it to say that the thrust of the math is to show the probability that a conspiracy would have suffered a breach of secrecy that exposes it (and thus defeats it's aims of secret influence) after a given time with a given number of people. It even uses empirical evidence from such broken conspiracies (like Watergate, the NSA PRISM affair, or the Tuskegee syphilis experimentation) to put bounds on the model.
I'm not sure whether your applied math education education included study of Poisson statistics, but this instance uses mostly familiar operations that can be worked out by hand with patience.
With the exception of a few logarithms, it's nothing more than addition, subtraction, multiplication, division, and exponentiation. No calculus, trigonometric, or other exotic operations. Also if the parameter N(t), the number of conspirators at time t, is a constant (which could validly represent the average number of conspirators over time t) there is no need for the logarithms leaving only basic arithmetic operations.
You may find it more accessible than it seems at first blush after a bit of working out the numbers.
Cheers, and hopefully this demystifies the math for you.
P.S. neither the blathering, nor the math does the work of exposing conspiracy. The math just gives an objective tool to model the probabilities associated. It's simply a quantitative exercise to inform perspective in a rigorous way.
If you want to test out conspiracies just try posting webpages about them and seeing how much effort Google takes to adjust their algorithms and make sure nobody sees it
That is why I was putting 100,000 porn search tags on all my conspiracy pages to raise them in the rankings
That tactic doesn't work anymore, but how's that for maths?
That doesn't seem like much more than a test of anything but Google's patience or capacity for censorship to me.
But those mathematical models aren't for testing out conspiracy theories either anyway (just a statistical model of them) so I'm a bit confused about the relevance of gaming Google with tags.
"...how's that for maths?"
Your comment contains the number 100,000 so that's at least some math I suppose. Numbers are mathematical objects after all.