johnph77...where did your learn math ?

Reply #34

johnph77 — Sun, 26 Mar 2006 05:47:16 GMT

Thoth -

So true. If 2 can be a variable it fouls up the whole works. I have my processing spreadsheet set up where 56 and the payouts are the only variables in a 5+bonus table. Other tables are set up as needed. Works like a charm.

gl

j

Reply #33

Thoth — Sun, 26 Mar 2006 03:48:00 GMT

There are many ways to arrive at the correct totals/odds. I suppose that if there is a logic to the make up of the formula or if you understand them or explain them, they shouldnt really be considered incorrect .

There are some who would argue that only one of the equations of 2*4 and ((2*2)+2+1+1), and 2^3 is correct-while others are not, depending on what they are applied to.

Reply #32

johnph77 — Sat, 25 Mar 2006 20:45:20 GMT

Thoth -

From my site:

Mega Millions 21 Mar 06.

Participating jurisdictions - California, Georgia, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, New Jersey, New York, Ohio, Texas, Virginia, Washington.

Notes: Minimum bet $1.00. Jackpot shown is minimum, rollover will increase payout and percentages. All California payouts are pari-mutuel, based on state sales.

Formula for Total Possibilities - ((56!/51!)/(5!)x(46)) = 175,711,536.

5/561/46FormulaPossibilitiesOdds - 1::PayoutTotal

Reply #31

Thoth — Sat, 25 Mar 2006 18:55:59 GMT

5 of 5 + MB = 175,711,536

((56!)/((56-5)!))/(5!) 46

4 of 5 + MB = 689,064.85

((56!)/((56-5)!))/(5!) 46

---------------------------------------------------

((5!)/((5-4)!))/(4!) ((51!)/((51-1)!))/(1!)

3 of 5 + MB = 13,781.30

((56!)/((56-5)!))/(5!) 46

---------------------------------------------------

((5!)/((5-3)!))/(3!) ((51!)/((51-2)!))/(2!)

2 of 5 + MB = 843.75

((56!)/((56-5)!))/(5!) 46

---------------------------------------------------

((5!)/((5-2

Reply #30

johnph77 — Sat, 25 Mar 2006 11:23:01 GMT

Guess What! -

I've spent a good part of my free time the last two days creating a text file explaining how every part of every formula inside the lottery tables on my website came to be, why it is there and what it does. But, from your last few posts, I've come to believe that, for whatever reason you've conceived, your only purpose in starting this thread was an attempt to vilify work that is presently beyond your understanding and comprehension. Therefore I will not post the contents of tha... [ More ]

Reply #29

GuessWhat! — Sat, 25 Mar 2006 08:15:31 GMT

Congratulations, You have proven the world really is FLAT ! (or is it round ?; I never could keep it straight).

Now that you've had your fun with what must be the most ambiguously USELESS scrap of trivia; perhaps YOU (since johnph77 >>> CAN'T <<<)

would like to address the reason for this thread:

Reference:

https://www.lotterypost.com/thread/130772.htm

johnph77 posted a lot of "Formula(s)" and "Possibilities" which to me, appear to come from ... well ... all cynicism aside ... The... [ More ]

Reply #28

Thoth — Sat, 25 Mar 2006 04:52:35 GMT

Date: 03/18/98 at 16:39:40

From: Doctor Sam

Subject: Re: 0 factorial = 1

Denise,

You are correct that 0! = 1 for reasons that are similar to why

x^0 = 1. Both are defined that way. But there are reasons for these

definitions; they are not arbitrary.

You cannot reason that x^0 = 1 by thinking of the meaning of powers as

repeated multiplications because you cannot multiply x zero times.

Similarly, you cannot reason out 0! just in terms of the meaning of

factorial because

Reply #27

GuessWhat! — Fri, 24 Mar 2006 23:45:35 GMT

Let's go johnph77

What are you waiting for ? ... the Easter Bunny ? ... a Playboy Bunny ?

Gather you FACTS and teach me something...Your brand of Snake Oil is getting old

Reply #26

Thoth — Fri, 24 Mar 2006 03:07:02 GMT

Generation

Reply #25

Todd — Fri, 24 Mar 2006 01:18:07 GMT

No, but I have some pearls of wisdom for you: take some nice pills .

Reply #24

Todd — Fri, 24 Mar 2006 01:12:15 GMT

Use the table feature using the Insert Table button. Looks like this

Reply #23

GuessWhat! — Fri, 24 Mar 2006 00:28:10 GMT

What a concept...

Reply #22

masslottery — Thu, 23 Mar 2006 23:57:28 GMT

i seem to be haveing a problem lineing this up can someone send me a email on how to correct this problem thanks

Reply #21

masslottery — Thu, 23 Mar 2006 23:55:33 GMT

By the numbers Each number below represents a letter in a common word 1234567890

1234: carries heredity 456:period of time 567: I smell a _ _ _; 890:charged particle

Reply #20

masslottery — Thu, 23 Mar 2006 23:46:51 GMT

darn i hate when that happens am still learning how to post a tread

Reply #19

masslottery — Thu, 23 Mar 2006 23:42:52 GMT

By the numbers Each number below represents a letter in a common word 1234567890

1234: carries heredity 456:period of time................................................... .............................. 567: I smell a _ _ _; ..................................................................................................... 890:charged particle..................................... [ More ]

Reply #18

CalifDude — Thu, 23 Mar 2006 22:52:04 GMT

I hope so, too. My email is back up but no response from the professor, yet. I should probably get an agreement between johnph77 and GuessWhat that they would accept the professor's answer. I thought about also asking him if buying 2 PowerBall tickets cut my odds of losing in half, but I was afraid that he would not take my question about 0!=1 seriously so I let that one slide.

Reply #17

Clairvoyance — Thu, 23 Mar 2006 22:32:35 GMT

Now that Should be really Interesting! Now I can't wait to see the reply and I hope the professor does reply

Reply #16

CalifDude — Thu, 23 Mar 2006 22:18:55 GMT

Since I do not have an opinion on if 0!=1 or not, I went to the Harvard's School of Mathematics web site. There I found a web page for one of the mathematics professors. I emailed him asking him if 0!=1 or not. My email is down right now, but I will certainly post his answer (if he responds) on this thread.

Reply #15

GuessWhat! — Thu, 23 Mar 2006 21:44:27 GMT

Do you suppose Todd, you could now offer up some pearls of wisdom to encourage johnph77 to "put up or shut up" in the spirit in which you suggest ?

For as much as you don't care for antagonism on this site; I simply refuse to tolerate propaganga as a reasonable contribution to the lively art of conversation

Reply #14

Todd — Thu, 23 Mar 2006 21:11:06 GMT

This has turned out to be an interesting discussion. Rick, that was too funny!

GuessWhat, thanks for changing the discussion into one that focuses on the idea, rather than the person who put forth the idea.

Reply #13

RJOh — Thu, 23 Mar 2006 20:30:57 GMT

Fortunately, you don't have to be a mathematician or smart to play the lottery. When I read posts of lottery players who say they are making a living playing the lotteries, I'm convinced some of them don't understand the concept of zero either.

Reply #12

Rick G — Thu, 23 Mar 2006 19:59:52 GMT

I told my lottery agent I wanted 0-0-0 today and he gave me a ticket with 0-0-0. I told him, "No I wanted 0! 0! 0!"

He escorted me out of the store by the ear.

I came home and my wife asked me how many times I've cheated on her. I told her "0!". She screamed, "You cheated on me once?!!" She kicked me out of the house on my butt.

IMHO, 0 = 0 no matter what punctuation mark you put after, before, over or under it. The digit 0 and value of 0 was a breakthrough in the history of mathem... [ More ]

Reply #11

GuessWhat! — Thu, 23 Mar 2006 19:43:04 GMT

I find it striking that someone who touts him/her/itself as an authority on PERMUTATIONS and COMBINATIONS offers NO PROOF !!! You don't have to tell me what an expert you are...you have to SHOW me. I do NOT claim any original research on the subject. I just apply the basic principles that you, yourself could stand to learn a great deal from:

http://mathforum.org/dr.math/faq/faq.comb.perm.html

http://mathworld.wolfram.com/Permutation.html

http://www.themathpage.com/aPreCalc/permutati... [ More ]

Reply #10

johnph77 — Thu, 23 Mar 2006 17:18:28 GMT

Guess What! -

Now that the argument over factorial zero has been settled, please provide mathematical proof that the formulas posted on my site and the calculations derived from them are in error. Should I ask you to quote at least 2 (preferably more) VERIFIABLE, COMPETENT, RELIABLE, AUTHORITIES and otherwise MATHEMATICALLY ACCEPTABLE sources for that proof? Do you use different formulas? If so, what are they?

Links to your other posts in this forum do not qualify as at least 2 (prefera... [ More ]

Reply #9

GuessWhat! — Thu, 23 Mar 2006 05:30:06 GMT

Quote: Originally posted by Todd on March 22, 2006GuessWhat,

Stop posting nasty comments directed at johnph77. We don't tolerate personal attacks at Lottery Post, and you are clearly turning this into a personal attack, rather than criticisms of ideas.

Why can't you simply question johnph77's math formula, rather than jumping all over him? If you simply asked a question pleasantly, I'm sure he would be willing to explain his math forumla to you, but instead you chose to post your message... [ More ]

Reply #8

johnph77 — Wed, 22 Mar 2006 20:24:48 GMT

The following links may be a source of education and enlightenment of why factorial zero (0!) equals 1.

http://www.adonald.btinternet.co.uk/Factor/Zero.html

http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-9033545

http://home.att.net/~numericana/answer/algebra.htm

http://www.diracdelta.co.uk/science/source/f/a/factorial/source.html

http://www.tiscali.co.uk/reference/encyclopaedia/hutchinson/m0006679.html

http://portal.newman.wa.edu.au/technology/12infsys/html/KWH2003/SBP6Fact.htm

gl

j

Reply #7

Todd — Wed, 22 Mar 2006 15:56:35 GMT

GuessWhat,

Stop posting nasty comments directed at johnph77. We don't tolerate personal attacks at Lottery Post, and you are clearly turning this into a personal attack, rather than criticisms of ideas.

Why can't you simply question johnph77's math formula, rather than jumping all over him? If you simply asked a question pleasantly, I'm sure he would be willing to explain his math forumla to you, but instead you chose to post your message like you were addressing an enemy. That will not... [ More ]

Reply #6

GuessWhat! — Wed, 22 Mar 2006 15:38:13 GMT

Congratulations,

That's the ONE thing you got right !

You have absolutely NO IDEA at all ...

Reply #5

johnph77 — Wed, 22 Mar 2006 08:43:43 GMT

I have no idea what Guess What!'s problem is, and I don't care.

Reply #4

four4me — Wed, 22 Mar 2006 06:42:47 GMT

Z

+9

+8

+7

+6

+5

+4

+3

+2

+1

X -9 -8 -7 -6 -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +6 +7 +8 +9 Y

-1

-2

-3

-4

-5 XYZ Axis

-6

-7

-8

-9

Z

Reply #3

GuessWhat! — Wed, 22 Mar 2006 06:35:17 GMT

http://www.zero-factorial.com/whatis.html

Most (NOT all) calculators define 0!=1. HOWEVER, That is NOT the end of the story. Just because an EMPTY set can be defined ONE way ONLY; does NOT dismiss the fact that ANY quantity MULTIPLIED by zero = ZERO and any quantity DIVIDED by zero is INDETERMINATE. So what comes first ? ... the chicken or the egg ? Can you pin the tail on INFINITY ? .... Of course you can ... in the Twlight Zone.

johnph77 is attempting to demonstrate FRACTIONAL (did... [ More ]

Reply #2

ryanm — Wed, 22 Mar 2006 05:22:29 GMT

Yep, 0! = 1. Don't ask me why; that's just the way it is.

Reply #1

anonymous77 — Wed, 22 Mar 2006 05:15:37 GMT

Is 0! not 1

johnph77...where did your learn math ?

GuessWhat! — Wed, 22 Mar 2006 04:36:58 GMT

https://www.lotterypost.com/thread/130772.htm

Your formulas are WRONG !!!

ANY quantity divided by zero = NOT Defined, Division by ZERO Error, E or e

and

0! is NOT defined a.k.a INDETERMINATE

Take your factorials and GO BACK to school (!) <--- (see...factorial...get it