Is this a theory that pertains to sorts and searches?
Wouldn’t win today, if it were now 2016. I mean if people didn’t change. Which of course they do. More simply I meant didn’t win in 2016.
The 3rd list is Benfords law with some yet to be defined criteria or parameter that gives a small number of target counties. I’d like to note that enough data is not yet available to draw any conclusions.
Enough data is available to draw the conclusion that you are providing a link to a bad analysis that lacks the details to show whether or not the differences are meaningful. See Thudlow_Boink’s link for what happens if one digs beneath the surface of this spurious claim.
“We can’t draw a conclusion yet” is what one responds to a good faith argument. For bad faith arguments the correct response is “put up, or shut up!”
Strange Numeric Coincidences
24 hours in a day, 24 beers in a case.
The apparent disc size of the Sun and the Moon as seen from Earth are so similar, that either of them can seem larger in normal variation.
It’s common for folks to apply Benford’s Law to areas it’s not mathematically valid for. It sounds superficially plausible that results of almost anything should follow a logarithmic decay. But that’s NOT what Benford’s says.
It says that the leftmost digit(s) of totals of uncorrelated measurements will follow a logarithmic curve. Critically, a count of anything is not a total of uncorrelated measurements. Each measurement has the same value: “1”. And therefore they’re totally correlated. And therefore Benford’s is not applicable.
You may be right. It sounds good to me.
That’s because the six-digit number is divisible by 1001, which is 7 x 11 x 13. 143 is 11 x 13, so the result you’re talking about is the original number x 7.
You got it; the temperature must vary continuously for the theorem to apply.
This can be generalized to any base.
P(x) = ax^5 + bx^4 + cx^3 + ax^2 + bx + c
is always divisible by (x**3 + 2), which is of course 1001 in decimal. I always find it interesting that many such tricks can be generalized. Divisibilty by (x - 1) is another example. I worked out a proof of that one once, but this brain is too small to contain it. 
Or more accurately, my “proof” was so clumsy and inelegant I’ve forgotten the details. But it did work.
Oops, missed the edit window. It should have been:
P(x) as described above is always divisible by (x^3 + 1).
What makes you think that’s a coincidence?
Why do programmers confuse Halloween with Christmas?
Because 31 OCT == 25 DEC 
Ah but 4 = 2 + 2 and 2 is the oddest prime of all. So you can say that as far as anyone knows every even number > 2 is the sum of two odd primes.
By the way, someone pointed out above that e starts out as 2.7128282828, but didn’t mention that the next six digits were 459045. AFAIK, there is no apparent regularity after that.
2.718281828
Norwegian playwright Ibsen was born in 1828, so a Norwegian “mnemonic” for the first 16 digits of e is 2 point 7 Ibsen Ibsen 45 90 45.
It requires you to remember Ibsen’s birth year though, which I rarely do.
Grr. Of course. 2.718281828459045.
Otoh, if you remember the first bit of the decimal expansion of e then you have a handy mnemonic for Ibsens’ birth year! It’s commutative! Ain’t math grand?
If you can just remember that Charles Brewster Benedict[who?] was born on February 7, 1828 then you have a mnemonic for 2 7 1828 (1828).
ETA: Oh, and I’ve always found it helpful that knowing how to spell “arithmetic” reminds me to beware that a rat in the house may eat the ice cream.