rainbow lake Canada Member #25177 November 2, 2005 10765 Posts Offline

Posted: March 21, 2006, 8:21 am - IP Logged

Quote: Originally posted by Cashman87 on March 20, 2006

I'll give you some valid hints to perfecting the pi method.

There is more than one type of pi.

Research all of the different types of "pi", and you will be closer than you've ever been before to getting consistent straight hits.

Also, 639, also equals = 936, keep that in mind for any number you try to put through the formula.

Example, If you're going to use 345, make sure you use 543 too.

And, '666' is not the only number that should be used.

Just because 639/pi +666 = n (n= the following drawn number), and "n" comes up in the next drawing, doesn't mean 639/pi+666=n will give you the "n" that will come up in the next drawing again.

Research some theology, including the magical square of the sun, and you'll find another number than may be as, even more, or partially effective as 666.

There, I've given as much as possible, without directly giving my pick 3/pick 4 method away.

:)

There are many, many formulas for pi, from the simple to the very complicated.

Ramanujan (1913-14) and Olds (1963) give geometric constructions for 355/113. Gardner (1966, pp. 92-93) gives a geometric construction for . Dixon (1991) gives constructions for and . Constructions for approximations of are approximations to circle squaring (which is itself impossible). There are many, many formulas for pi, from the simple to the very complicated.

rainbow lake Canada Member #25177 November 2, 2005 10765 Posts Offline

Posted: March 21, 2006, 8:46 am - IP Logged

BERKELEY, CA - David H. Bailey, chief technologist of the Department of Energy's National Energy Research Scientific Computing Center (NERSC) at Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, and his colleague Richard Crandall, director of the Center for Advanced Computation at Reed College, Portland, Oregon, have taken a major step toward answering the age-old question of whether the digits of pi and other math constants are "random." Their results are reported in the Summer 2001 issue of Experimental Mathematics.

Pi, the ubiquitous number whose first few digits are 3.14159, is irrational, which means that its digits run on forever (by now they have been calculated to billions of places) and never repeat in a cyclical fashion. Numbers like pi are also thought to be "normal," which means that their digits are random in a certain statistical sense.

Describing the normality property, Bailey explains that "in the familiar base 10 decimal number system, any single digit of a normal number occurs one tenth of the time, any two-digit combination occurs one one-hundredth of the time, and so on. It's like throwing a fair, ten-sided die forever and counting how often each side or combination of sides appears."

Pi certainly seems to behave this way. In the first six billion decimal places of pi, each of the digits from 0 through 9 shows up about six hundred million times. Yet such results, conceivably accidental, do not prove normality even in base 10, much less normality in other number bases.

In fact, not a single naturally occurring math constant has been proved normal in even one number base, to the chagrin of mathematicians. While many constants are believed to be normal -- including pi, the square root of 2, and the natural logarithm of 2, often written "log(2)" -- there are no proofs.

The determined attacks of Bailey and Crandall are beginning to illuminate this classic problem. Their results indicate that the normality of certain math constants is a consequence of a plausible conjecture in the field of chaotic dynamics, which states that sequences of a particular kind, as Bailey puts it, "uniformly dance in the limit between 0 and 1" -- a conjecture that he and Crandall refer to as "Hypothesis A."

"If even one particular instance of Hypothesis A could be established," Bailey remarks, "the consequences would be remarkable" -- for the normality (in base 2) of pi and log(2) and many other mathematical constants would follow.

This result derives directly from the discovery of an ingenious formula for pi that Bailey, together with Canadian mathematicians Peter Borwein and Simon Plouffe, found with a computer program in 1996. Named the BBP formula for its authors, it has the remarkable property that it permits one to calculate an arbitrary digit in the binary expansion of pi without needing to calculate any of the preceding digits. Prior to 1996, mathematicians did not believe this could be done.

The digit-calculation algorithm of the BBP formula yields just the kind of chaotic sequences described in Hypothesis A. Says Bailey, "These constant formulas give rise to sequences that we conjecture are uniformly distributed between 0 and 1 -- and if so, the constants are normal."

Bailey emphasizes that the new result he and Crandall have obtained does not constitute a proof that pi or log(2) is normal (since this is predicated on the unproven Hypothesis A). "What we have done is translate a heretofore unapproachable problem, namely the normality of pi and other constants, to a more tractable question in the field of chaotic processes."

He adds that "at the very least, we have shown why the digits of pi and log(2) appear to be random: because they are closely approximated by a type of generator associated with the field of chaotic dynamics."

For the two mathematicians, the path to their result has been a long one. Bailey memorized pi to more than 300 digits "as a diversion between classroom lectures" while still a graduate student at Stanford. In 1985 he tested NASA's new Cray-2 supercomputer by computing the first 29 million digits of pi. The program found bugs in the Cray-2 hardware, "much to the consternation of Seymour Cray."

Crandall, who researches scientific applications of computation, suggested the possible link between the digits of pi and the theory of chaotic dynamic sequences.

While other prominent mathematicians in the field fear that the crucial Hypothesis A may be too hard to prove, Bailey and Crandall remain sanguine. Crandall quotes the eminent mathematician Carl Ludwig Siegel: "One cannot guess the real difficulties of a problem before having solved it."

Among the numerous connections of Bailey's and Crandall's work with other areas of research is in the field of pseudorandom number generators, which has applications in cryptography.

"The connection to pseudorandom number generators is likely the best route to making further progress," Bailey adds. "Richard and I are pursuing this angle even as we speak."

For more about the normality of pi and other constants, visit David Bailey's website. The BBP algorithm for calculating binary digits of pi was found using the PSLQ algorithm developed by Bailey and mathematician-sculptor Helaman Ferguson; it is discussed at Bailey's website and also in the Fall 2000 issue of Berkeley Lab Highlights.

The Berkeley Lab is a U.S. Department of Energy national laboratory located in Berkeley, California. It conducts unclassified scientific research and is managed by the University of California.

Obetz United States Member #4156 March 26, 2004 86 Posts Offline

Posted: March 21, 2006, 2:13 pm - IP Logged

Quote: Originally posted by Cashman87 on March 20, 2006

Yes. VERY close tx.

And so is 888, the "numerical value" of christ. Very powerful number.

There is also "musical pi", "space pi", and "time pi".

All very effective equations.

Another thing aaron left our is re-arrangements of the pi equation. x/3.1415929+666=n is not the ONLY way to do that equation.

Now, I'm not saying I know all of this for a fact.....I'm just saying, my creative imagination, got me to figure out how to get the number, without "remote viewing" as Aaron saids. Which only leaves me with the conclusion, he did not remote view the numbers, and is telling everyone that to throw them off.

If someone can figure out how to use this method, they will have a very effective winning method of p3/p4, but, won't have complete access to my family secret. :)

I've definitely made what I said pac, but, I haven't really had time to play the lottery lately. I haven't brought a ticket online or offline since I posted that post in the discussion section ...."Almost cashed in on a whopper of a win today"....

Work is taking up alot of my time lately.

Hi Cashman. In the equation x/3.1415929+666=n, does x = the previously drawn number?

Calgary Canada Member #9419 December 7, 2004 228 Posts Offline

Posted: March 21, 2006, 3:37 pm - IP Logged

flamemoth: no x does not represent the previous draw.

I did some testing with that premise of x representing the previous draw with over 500 real draws and didn't even come close to predicting a correct outcome using it. So if anyone has the inclination to think that this formula does anything, don't bother. Like cashman said before, there are a bunch of things that need to be done to it prior to entering it into the formula to get any good results.

United States Member #27050 November 26, 2005 40273 Posts Offline

Posted: March 21, 2006, 3:53 pm - IP Logged

Quote: Originally posted by xavier102772 on March 21, 2006

flamemoth: no x does not represent the previous draw.

I did some testing with that premise of x representing the previous draw with over 500 real draws and didn't even come close to predicting a correct outcome using it. So if anyone has the inclination to think that this formula does anything, don't bother. Like cashman said before, there are a bunch of things that need to be done to it prior to entering it into the formula to get any good results.

Yes, like (perhaps) changing the additive factor; 111, or 666, or 888. If I'm reading Cashman's posts correctly, I believe X IS the previous draw. Now I've taken x and divided by PI and added 111, and 666 and 888 to it. I have also taken the previous draw and made the six possible combinations from it (excluding doubles of course) and have put it through the formula with 111, 666, and 888. This provides 18 numbers. Using these formula, I have found several hits. What I have NOT done yet is look for mirrors of these numbers, as this would most likely increase the hit ratio.

Am I getting close Cashman????? Or am I on a wild goose chase? Or perhaps discovering yet ANOTHER PI method!!!!!!!!

United States Member #28973 December 26, 2005 439 Posts Offline

Posted: March 21, 2006, 10:09 pm - IP Logged

Quote: Originally posted by pacattack05 on March 21, 2006

Quote: Originally posted by nonphotoblue on March 21, 2006

Ok, so let me get this straight since i am quite debilitated in the numerical sense and i manage to get confused quite easily....

x/3.1415929+666=n is the equation where x is the number drawn the day before and n is the number going to be drawn

BUT in order to get the correct number drawn you have to manipulate x somehow? With different types of pi? or 111? or 888?

and cashman knows what needs to be done to x but its his family secret so he wont say, but hes giving us hints about what needs to be done to x?

is this correct? sorry im so slow :/ I'm just trying to understand whats going onnnn

X is not the number drawn the night before. It's a number that has to be Remote Viewed.

:)

And the block from keeping anyone to figure out how to use this formula continues....

Not trying to anything negative, as I don't like sending what I don't like receiving.....but, I have a feeling Aaron gets a kick out of having tons of people hovering around him like his shadow, waiting for him to reveal his "remote viewing" technique.

I am telling you, because I've prooven it to myself, that you will not get the the number to put in the formula by remote viewing. Ah man......

United States Member #28973 December 26, 2005 439 Posts Offline

Posted: March 21, 2006, 10:14 pm - IP Logged

I'm not saying that to throw you off bro, .....I'd just hate to see you waiste so much blasted time, when you could've have figured it out yourself if you just follow the hints and leads I've given, and dig deep....DEEP into numerology, mathematics, and theology.

Geeze, if you're going remote view a number....remote view the ACTUAL number that will come up. Why waiste it trying to remote view a number to plug into someone's formula? You know what I mean?

I mean, the key to that formula is not neccesarily my family secret....but, very close. :) And, I think it's best that you guys figure it out, instead of me just giving it away.