how much the number of soldiers contributes to ability to win a war?
me and roommate in debate over how much sway number of soldiers contributed to win ort loss for each war. does anyone have numbers of available soldiers, not how many died in action. he says it absolutely does, but i don't remember any of the major wars being fought by vastly outnumbered militaries, or where tactics and luck haven't played a huge role. i do know that the civil war was double people on the north than south. wasn't even the civil war close in the end?
the quickie answer is that, if the two armies are equal in resources, abilities and training, then the one with the largest number will win.

however, that's for a single battle. 

in real life, it's a matter of which force can bring to bear the greater force (position, resources, power) at specific points. then, in that local area, the greater force will always win. this is why the spartans at thermopylae could hold back an army of tens of thousands with only 300 men -- the persians could not bring their superior force (more men and other resources) to bear on what should have been a skirmish. yes, the persians eventually won, but at the price of being able to beat the athenian forces later, and even then, it was a matter of someone betraying the spartans.

in wwii, the germans should have won the battle of britain, which would have kept the russians and americans out of the war. but britain could use its resources better in the actual field (i know --it was mostly an aerial battle) and hence beat the germans back, preventing the superior forces from invading the islands and getting control of enough resources to conquer at least half the world.

in the american civil war, the confederacy should have won, because they had the better army and resources, but eventually, the union could bring more into play than they could, and turned the tide.

also look at israel's "six day war" -- out numbered and our resourced, they beat the arab coalition easily -- same basic principles...

so, not so much luck as being better able to use the resources available.

btw, read sun tzu's art of war -- being able to use your resources better than your opponent can mean that a smaller force beats the larger one
all you can do is do your best and aim as high as you possibly can. everybody has limitations, not everybody can "win". there will always be somebody better than you in some way: taller, better looking, more money. it doesn't matter, because most people don't even strive for greatness.maybe you run that marathon and you come in like 20th or something. you didn't win. but you came 20th out of thousands of people. those thousands of people also trained, and are fitter than the average person. they guy/girl who came in 1000th, 2000th, 3000th, 10,000th place is fitter than the average person. the average person doesn't exercise at all. the average person could barely run a half a marathon, they couldn't even complete that.the same goes everywhere else. i like to lift weights. plenty of guys are bigger and stronger than me. but i'm much stronger than the average guy. 65% of guys are obese. of the remaining 35%, the majority are scrawny and out of shape. simply lifting weights regularly, eating right, and having the discipline to do that sets you apart from probably 80% of men in that area.that's all that's really required. there is already enough evidence to either require another election in some states (which there may not be time for) or require the state party convention (which are often controlled by republicans) to make a decision due to the issues laid out in the legal arguments. trump's team has very valid points and evidence to back up those points. legal process is necessary for legitimacy, but any judge who strictly interprets the law will side with trump’s team. due to the media’s propaganda campaign, i’m sure many judges would be concerned about the ramifications of the legal outcome, but ultimately they have to do their job as arbiters of the law. so trump should win his lawsuits even if the supreme court has to make the final decision. republicans are likely, but not guaranteed to be loyal to their party. trump will likely win in the end... either way, as of now no votes have been certified. if we examine those states that have generally finished their vote counts and have no legal contest at the moment then the current electoral vote count would be 227 biden vs 229 trump. so technically trump is currently winning even if the mainstream media wants to brainwash you into believing something else. Game theory, developed by [American mathematician John Nash](https://www.britannica.com/biography/John-Nash), is essential to AI because it plays an underlying role in how these smart algorithms improve over time.


At its most basic, AI is about algorithms that are deployed to find solutions to problems. Game theory is about players in opposition trying to achieve specific goals. As most aspects of life are about competition, game theory has many meaningful real-world applications.


These problems tend to be dynamic. Some game theory problems are natural candidates for AI algorithms. So, whenever game theory is applied, multiple AI agents that interact with each other will only care about utility to itself.


Data scientists within this space should be [aware of the following games](https://towardsdatascience.com/game-theory-for-data-scientists-2a3b649809):


* Symmetric vs. asymmetric
* Perfect vs. imperfect information
* Cooperative vs. non-cooperative
* Simultaneous vs. sequential
* Zero-sum vs. non-zero-sum people do vote, regardless if they cast a ballot. silence can be thought of as a vote. the reason i say this is that i chose not to vote out of no confidence for the ballot. i would either have voted for something in which i did not believe, or i couldn't "thrown away" with a 3rd party vote, in which i still didn't believe.there is no write in option for "no confidence," and interestingly, if enough people voted this way, the way american voting works, would require either the candidates to all be thrown out, and a new set of candidates, or the government would make their own choice, at which point democracy would be dead. if we look at voting in this manner, it most certainly is compulsory. however, america has an odd obsession of thinking that the common man's vote for president actually matters. local votes will influence politics for a person far more than a presidential vote ever will. this is why many localities have gerrymandering, in order to control the constituency and votes.i personally do not believe my vote will ever make a difference, as it never has in any political election. besides, perpetuating the idea that the common man isn't controlled by our plutocratic corporatist "democracy" is silly, but people will keep on voting and believing that they matter, or are heard. perhaps my view is cynical and pessimistic. i see no reason to change it.c'est la vie. hi!
here is the answer to your question
let x number of soldiers are transferred from the fort
after 4 days
after 4 days the food would last for 28 – 4 = 24 days
for 1200 soldiers
the given information can be represented as
![](https://s3mn%20mnimgs%20com/img/shared/userimages/mn_images/image/6(24)%20png)
300 soldiers are transferred
thus, the number of soldiers left in the fort = 1200 –
300 = 900
hope! you got the answer
cheers! and what about guessing? are you good at guessing? try to guess if i am or not, if you guess right you choose your reward ;p i am far more concerned with people soft on crime yet want to make criminals out of legal gun owners. i am more concerned about people who think any loser should be allowed in america. if anyone has hid out for so many years they should be allowed to stayand if they breed a litter of kids on our tax dollars they should stay. HM ok, another day, another try, but I gotta say: The seemingly endless lessons about numbers and numbers on top of numbers and more numbers are really disencouraging me a lot. It's been a lot of fun up to this point, but I really don't see the point in filling out so much about numbers for the sake of numbers o\_o Could you, like, do a little less of that? depends on what you consider to be a productive conversation. but i see no such thing unless there are clear results.another case like this is yet more bait for the media to relish and exacerbate, and yet more opportunities for the cynics to come out saying it's about race or that nothing will ever change.it doesn't seem productive with the attitudes we display in our national conversation. all the while, another family suffers to the backdrop of societal indifference or name-blaming.it strikes me that no one brings up the most prevailing theme amongst all of these cases: fear, and the permeating insecurity that's deeply rooted in the american psyche.all i see is the continued pattern of fear rearing its ugly face in case after case, be it inadequate training, racial & cultural differences, vendettas, or the proliferation of gun ownership.and here, a foreigner gets caught in the middle of this american phenomenon. and while the details are incredibly vague, i feel it could very well have been simply this woman innocently knocking in the vehicle to get the officers attention; something likely innocuous back in australia, but certainly something most americans wouldn't dare attempt. and she suffered the ultimate price for it.culture and mentality takes a long time to change. and the more we continue to be equal-but-separate, i can't even imagine a productive conversation, let alone a result.i'm sorry, but no matter how much the cry for justice, or even the delivery of such, that alone will not be enough to alter the course of history and our future. There could be a variety of leaderboards. Like one of top points overall, and another for the most points gained in the previous 4 weeks or something. I may never top to overall leaderboard, but I have a chance of getting on a monthly leaderboard.