# Snowflake's Feed

## back to dragster analysis...

I wasnt gonna speak up until i could ask for intelligent question and not make a fool of myself, but as i slipped up in posting my thread about removed scores (which i only found on accident researching dragster) cats already out of the bad that i'm relooking into it.

so dragster really had two parts, and i feel everyone only focused on one.

1. analyze the code and build a model from it

2 use the model to determine fastest possible time

there was a lot of talk about the code analysis, yet very little talk about if once you accept the analyssi is correct, if 5.57 still really is the best time the model allows for.

this interestings me because first of all the code analysis, for fears of copyright violatins, was not transparent and i cant analyse the code on my own (would still like to find time for that later though), however the model was freely available for all to view, but i dont think many (possibly any) of us did so, instead just trusting omni was correct.

i'm trained in rigorous math proofs. remember, a mathematician takes the angle similiar to a philospher that almost nothing is proven, simplest exlantion is what if we're dreaming, or "in the matrix" as a result even science is only 99% sure, whereas math likes to 100%. math can only do what science and philosophy cant because with math we are 100% sure of the rules since we invent the rules of math and we can therefore be 100% of the logic applied. as a result math proofs can introduce a pedantic level of rigor, that to be honest, is a bit overboard but still nice to be thorough

basically, i've learned how to mathematically prove things that everyone already knows is true anyway. take things that are 99.999% sure, and use math proofs to make it 100%

I wanted analyse omini's model, based on the assumption the code analysis correct, try to 100% prove that if that assumption is correct than 5.57 really is the fastest time. if i thoroughly prove it, i know most people will say "big deal you 'proved' what we already knew" but i think some people would like to see that more rigorous proof, i know i would. and, if i fail to prove it by math proof standards then finding why i failed opens a very interesting line to look in, since the only reason i wouldnt be able to prove it is if it isnt true.

first i had to find his spreadsheet -- and searching for it is why i stubmled on other things https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1HhaBah7e48lBRA18v8Mgr-fRVZS5DUJb_pnOsBTC34c/edit#gid=1632906092