I have had some PM's inquiring about how I am using a computer to arrive at my selections so here goes:
I will run down the nickel tour version of what the computer program entails.
The computer itself doesn't actually "generate simulations" much. It analyzes movement of players on video to produce four factors: efficiency, fluidity, speed, and precision. This produces a rating on each of these and serves as the baseline multiplier of the 116 categories factored into a spread. The rest is merely an algorithmic equation. Well, I guess it is two algorithmic equations (one for each team) that is then factored into an active data structure. These numbers are then placed into a matrix-chain multiplication problem. These are graphed and layed over the graph of a recursive data structure and the absolute performance guarantee (in this case, the expected output data from "the line" to decide if there is a graph isomorphism or if the figures show a "lean". IF there is a "lean", the three graphs are converted back into the matrices which produce the final graph, the Eulerian graph (also known as the Euler Cycle, but placed on a graph) to determine the probability that the weights and measurements of the calculations and factors will provide a result off of the absolute performance guarantee (or "line/spread"). While these graphs are being analyzed, the algorithm continues to work itself through the pertinent numbers by nondeterministic finite tree automation. The last two stops for the algorithm convert these theoretical means into what are called hard numbers, which are multiplied against each other (think cancellation from algebra, but on crack) to see if the hard numbers locate the exact same descrepancy that the graphs show in the same place. If so, the graph figures and hard numbers determine a relationship in a theorem I have named (yes, it is mine, so that may be where any potential problems exist) the confluently functional pushdown McKnight cross structure. It is similar to combining the confluently persistent data structure and the inverse Ackerman function. This has been an awesome experience for me, as I had been struggling for what I would publish for my final dissertation (I work, but am still finishing my dissertation), but the CFPMCS will be what I go with, as it truly challenges a mathematical function once deemed to be a postulate. In other words, I am excited and hope what began as a bet may someday make me famous in the world of mathematics.
So there you go. Now at least I have a cut and paste answer to give on the PM's.
BOL today, guys!
Established in 1995,
Hot Forum Topics
