Eventually someone does the math, I can simplify how this mathematician find
the algorithmic fraud using this affidavit found at;
https://thedonald.win/p/11R4SWiTbg/pennslyvania-saved-more-informat/
document/488015233/PA-Affadavit
‘Each report of votes from a precinct contains a “timestamp”.’
—This is my simplification;
The method “Intended Loser to Total Ratio”
3 results in a precinct, a loser, a winner, and 3pCandidate.
loser is given an exact number, always a constant (KEY)
-then the precinct has a leftover set to assign
winner is given a minimum number,
3pCandidate = 0
the leftover set is split between;
winner is tabulated to beat loser,
3pCandidate gets some of the leftover
so: winner > loser > 3pCandidate
Remember that — Intended Loser to Total Ratio?
That is what they find in concurrent timestamps,
the ratio is transferring from precinct to precinct.
Another quote from that link;
“The results of the Second Tensor were devastating. First and
foremost, it was observed that the First Partition of the
Second Tensor, captured roughly 20,000 transfers;
however, the Second Partition of the Second Tensor, captured
roughly 30,000 transfers,
a difference exceeding 50%, an event that could not occur for
anything other than manipulated data.”