-- corrupt-corrupter-corruptest --
There is a problem with asserting numerically the
magnitude of corruption, because then you get numbers; and numbers are subject to rules and even algebraic structure. In other words, at that point, you are no longer allowed to make whatever claim.
For example, corruption1 + corruption2 must give a third number corruption3, which must still be a valid corruption magnitude. If you double a sum of corruptions -- which is a scalar multiplication -- it must give the same result as summing the doubling of these numbers: 2*(c1 + c2) = 2*c1 + 2*c2. To put it in another way, these corruption numbers -- along with the standard arithmetic operators -- must form a
field. Otherwise, any computations will be inconsistent and even contradictory.
I have never read about anybody who has managed to theoretically quantify corruption in such a way that it forms a valid field. Is the source for these corruption magnitudes ultimately the United Nations? They have a knack for publishing the most laughable Mickey Mouse mathematics that you can imagine. Their publications are so incredibly ridiculous. Go to their site and have a good laugh.