Force Majeure

The “three to one” rule in military operations states that when the attacker has a three to one advantage in effective force over the defender, victory is assured.

This rule of thumb in military operations finds a sympathetic chord in the mathematical operation of the discrete analog of the GB model.

A three to one advantage in opposing military forces is equivalent to a net relative advantage of three minus one equals two, which corresponds to the boundary between decision processes that converge on unity and those that do not.

The three to one rule is thus a local application of a law that is universal in nature, and applies to all decisions, not just those that involve physical violence or military conflict.

The same rule is applied under much different circumstances in the U.S. Constitution, where no amendment is approved unless and until three-quarters (three to one) of the states have duly ratified it.

By comparison, removal of federal officers for high crimes and misdemeanors requires “only” a majority (one to one) of the House of Representatives for impeachment and two-thirds (two to one) of the Senate for conviction.

This may help to explain the incredible staying power of the U.S. Constitution, which has endured for more than two centuries with relatively few changes, in despite of vast geographical expansion, enormous population growth, rapid urbanization, amazing changes in science and technology, multiple industrial revolutions, two world wars, and much, much more.

lightning strike at night
Force Majeure

Eight billion zombies can’t all be wrong. Not at the same time anyway. Time to make a difference. Take a stand. Strike a pose. Capture a moment. Or walk on by.

Lead by Example
Global Reach


What does the theory and practice of slavery have to do with Decision Space? Everything. And nothing.

Slavery it seems is built into the very structure of the universe we live in. What a terrible discovery! What can it mean? What does it portend? Is there yet hope? Or is all lost, now and forever more?

As far as Decision Space goes, there is both good news and bad news.

First, the bad news. Slavery is quite common in Decision Space under both Special and General Relativity. Not the single most common type of decision, thankfully. That honor goes to Normal Bass decisions under Special Relativity, and Strange Bass decisions under General Relativity. But common enough for government work.

Slavery in the mental universe of Decision Space should not be confused with slavery in the physical universe.

The specific features of slavery in Decision Space include:

a non-zero starting point

suboptimal performance

excessive use of force

These conditions might be explained in more detail, if you are interested.

Dimension 2

The addition of one more dimension of time opens up the possibilities of Decision Space considerably. Fully rational decisions influenced by internal forces representing the goals and aspirations of decision makers become possible for the first time in this dimension.

Dimension 2 produces a wide range of decision classifications under Special Relativity, unlike Dimension 0, which is restricted to Luce decisions, and Dimension 1, which is restricted to Normal Bass decisions.

Dimension 2 cannot produce valid Strange Bass decisions under Special Relativity. This is reserved for General Relativity.

The migration patterns of General Relativity open up yet more of Decision Space. The two most common types of decisions in Decision Space under General Relativity are Strange Bass and Normal Bass decisions, followed by imaginary decisions and a host of other more specialized forms.

Once time is unrestricted in terms of discrete measurement, the practical side of Decision Space begins to emerge into a more recognizable shape. The GB model is at its best in determining the shape of decision curves.