United States
Member #93,943
July 10, 2010
2,180 Posts
Offline
Some pathetic claims are being made about Randomness, Probability, and Statistics in other topics here. I thought it might be a good idea to establish this topic as a place to discuss these issues.
For starters, those who feel Probability and Statistics are a waste of time and/or can not be used to evaluate methods of picking lottery numbers should be aware of other extremely important areas where scientists routinely employ them in Engineering and Physics to solve problems and make decisions that affect all of our lives.
Anyone who really believes that their theories preempt the currently accepted ones of the scientific community should make the effort to organize their ideas and submit a paper for the next conference at Växjö. Short of that, they should at least put their ideas before the gatekeepers at Wikipedia!
I truly hope that some of the "beliefs" espoused elsewhere in the Mathematics Forum are not those of university students who might somehow slip through the cracks of their school's grading system, graduate, and end up designing buildings, airplanes, or weapons that our children and grandchildren might someday come in contact with.
Here is a great source for FREE Statistical Software!
mid-Ohio United States
Member #9
March 24, 2001
20,272 Posts
Offline
Playing the lotteries isn't brain surgery or rocket science and shouldn't be treated as such. The future of the world isn't likely to change because some one's lottery theory isn't scientific. If it works for you then it doesn't matter if it works for others. If you can't find a theory up to your standards do what other players are doing and make up one of your own, after all you aren't trying to save the world but trying to win a lottery.
* you don't need to buy every combination, just the winning ones *
United States
Member #93,943
July 10, 2010
2,180 Posts
Offline
Quote: Originally posted by RJOh on Jan 26, 2011
Playing the lotteries isn't brain surgery or rocket science and shouldn't be treated as such. The future of the world isn't likely to change because some one's lottery theory isn't scientific. If it works for you then it doesn't matter if it works for others. If you can't find a theory up to your standards do what other players are doing and make up one of your own, after all you aren't trying to save the world but trying to win a lottery.
"The future of the world isn't likely to change because some one's lottery theory isn't scientific."
This statement is true.
However, the kinds of fallacious reasoning that is used to concoct some of these unscientific lottery theories could have a serious effect on our future! If someone doesn't call attention to the absurdity of some of the VooDoo suggested by some here, there are those who will [illogically] assume their theory is logical! How will our country compete on the world stage when students in Asia are running circles around ours in the sciences? The lotteries are Random! Randomness is a powerful concept which helps solve complex problems in engineering and science. It would have been helpful if you had thought about what you read in my opening post to this thread before making your comment.
mid-Ohio United States
Member #9
March 24, 2001
20,272 Posts
Offline
....there are those who will [illogically] assume their theory is logical! How will our country compete on the world stage when students in Asia are running circles around ours in the sciences?
Lottery players has to be at least 18 years old, they aren't school students. If after 12 years of schooling a person doesn't has the basics of a good education in logic and science then playing the lotteries and reading unscientific lottery theories about how to win aren't going to make him dumber.
* you don't need to buy every combination, just the winning ones *
United States
Member #93,943
July 10, 2010
2,180 Posts
Offline
Quote: Originally posted by RJOh on Jan 27, 2011
....there are those who will [illogically] assume their theory is logical! How will our country compete on the world stage when students in Asia are running circles around ours in the sciences?
Lottery players has to be at least 18 years old, they aren't school students. If after 12 years of schooling a person doesn't has the basics of a good education in logic and science then playing the lotteries and reading unscientific lottery theories about how to win aren't going to make him dumber.
It appears you believe that once a person has graduated from High School they can no longer learn new concepts or challenge their beliefs. What I've read about cognition and learning causes me to be much more optimistic than you.
mid-Ohio United States
Member #9
March 24, 2001
20,272 Posts
Offline
Quote: Originally posted by jimmy4164 on Jan 27, 2011
It appears you believe that once a person has graduated from High School they can no longer learn new concepts or challenge their beliefs. What I've read about cognition and learning causes me to be much more optimistic than you.
That's not what I said, I said they don't get dumber because of reading other player's unscientific lottery theories as you suggested might happen unless some one challenge such lottery theories.
* you don't need to buy every combination, just the winning ones *
United States
Member #93,943
July 10, 2010
2,180 Posts
Offline
Quote: Originally posted by RJOh on Jan 27, 2011
That's not what I said, I said they don't get dumber because of reading other player's unscientific lottery theories as you suggested might happen unless some one challenge such lottery theories.
Did I say they got dumber? No. Do you deny they would fail to improve their understanding of Probability & Statistics?
It would be nice if you would reread my opening post and comment on the substance of it, rather than quibble over the silly issue you've latched onto. Did you use Google to look up any of the papers presented at the last conference at Växjö ?
United States
Member #93,943
July 10, 2010
2,180 Posts
Offline
Quote: Originally posted by Jordans121 on Jan 27, 2011
With so many pre-draws it is unlikely that the best scientists in the world would come close to figuring out the lottery.
Lotteries are among the simplest games ever invented! Mediocre scientists can handle it just fine. If the Lottery employs a sufficiently random RNG it makes no difference whatsoever how many "pre-draws" are made. If computerized draws were done in secret, allowing technicians, with their own tickets in hand, to keep drawing until they liked what they saw, knowing precisely what the next [Televised] Draw was going to produce because of their corrupt code, then there would be a problem. Do you know of any lotteries where these conditions exist? If so, don't you think this should be brought to the attention of the state's Legislators, or the District Attorney?
mid-Ohio United States
Member #9
March 24, 2001
20,272 Posts
Offline
Quote: Originally posted by jimmy4164 on Jan 27, 2011
Did I say they got dumber? No. Do you deny they would fail to improve their understanding of Probability & Statistics?
It would be nice if you would reread my opening post and comment on the substance of it, rather than quibble over the silly issue you've latched onto. Did you use Google to look up any of the papers presented at the last conference at Växjö ?
BTW, you brought up the word "dumb," not me.
BTW, you brought up the word "dumb," not me.
You're right and I also didn't say I believed that once a person graduated from High School they can no longer learn new concepts.
* you don't need to buy every combination, just the winning ones *
United States
Member #59,352
March 13, 2008
5,626 Posts
Offline
Quote: Originally posted by jimmy4164 on Jan 26, 2011
Some pathetic claims are being made about Randomness, Probability, and Statistics in other topics here. I thought it might be a good idea to establish this topic as a place to discuss these issues.
For starters, those who feel Probability and Statistics are a waste of time and/or can not be used to evaluate methods of picking lottery numbers should be aware of other extremely important areas where scientists routinely employ them in Engineering and Physics to solve problems and make decisions that affect all of our lives.
Anyone who really believes that their theories preempt the currently accepted ones of the scientific community should make the effort to organize their ideas and submit a paper for the next conference at Växjö. Short of that, they should at least put their ideas before the gatekeepers at Wikipedia!
I truly hope that some of the "beliefs" espoused elsewhere in the Mathematics Forum are not those of university students who might somehow slip through the cracks of their school's grading system, graduate, and end up designing buildings, airplanes, or weapons that our children and grandchildren might someday come in contact with.
Here is a great source for FREE Statistical Software!
United States
Member #59,352
March 13, 2008
5,626 Posts
Offline
Quote: Originally posted by jimmy4164 on Jan 26, 2011
Some pathetic claims are being made about Randomness, Probability, and Statistics in other topics here. I thought it might be a good idea to establish this topic as a place to discuss these issues.
For starters, those who feel Probability and Statistics are a waste of time and/or can not be used to evaluate methods of picking lottery numbers should be aware of other extremely important areas where scientists routinely employ them in Engineering and Physics to solve problems and make decisions that affect all of our lives.
Anyone who really believes that their theories preempt the currently accepted ones of the scientific community should make the effort to organize their ideas and submit a paper for the next conference at Växjö. Short of that, they should at least put their ideas before the gatekeepers at Wikipedia!
I truly hope that some of the "beliefs" espoused elsewhere in the Mathematics Forum are not those of university students who might somehow slip through the cracks of their school's grading system, graduate, and end up designing buildings, airplanes, or weapons that our children and grandchildren might someday come in contact with.
Here is a great source for FREE Statistical Software!
Kentucky United States
Member #32,651
February 14, 2006
10,301 Posts
Offline
Quote: Originally posted by RJOh on Jan 26, 2011
Playing the lotteries isn't brain surgery or rocket science and shouldn't be treated as such. The future of the world isn't likely to change because some one's lottery theory isn't scientific. If it works for you then it doesn't matter if it works for others. If you can't find a theory up to your standards do what other players are doing and make up one of your own, after all you aren't trying to save the world but trying to win a lottery.
"The future of the world isn't likely to change because some one's lottery theory isn't scientific."
The only question anybody should ask, does the system produces hits because that's what the majority of LP members seem to be looking for. We all understand it's a random game of chance and know the odds are against us.
For whatever reason, Jimmy is on a quest to tell us things we already know.
United States
Member #93,943
July 10, 2010
2,180 Posts
Offline
Quote: Originally posted by Stack47 on Jan 28, 2011
"The future of the world isn't likely to change because some one's lottery theory isn't scientific."
The only question anybody should ask, does the system produces hits because that's what the majority of LP members seem to be looking for. We all understand it's a random game of chance and know the odds are against us.
For whatever reason, Jimmy is on a quest to tell us things we already know.
It's curious to me why someone who claims to "already know" what I've been posting here would bother to take the time to read my posts and then put forth considerable effort to try to discredit them. Hhmm...
NASHVILLE, TENN United States
Member #33,371
February 20, 2006
1,044 Posts
Offline
Quote: Originally posted by jimmy4164 on Jan 28, 2011
It's curious to me why someone who claims to "already know" what I've been posting here would bother to take the time to read my posts and then put forth considerable effort to try to discredit them. Hhmm...