United States Member #93947 July 10, 2010 2180 Posts Offline

Posted: November 2, 2010, 1:59 am - IP Logged

I'm sure everyone is aware that the Base 10 number system used in much of the world today is used arbitrarily. There is no compelling reason to use Base 10, other than the fact that it evolved from our primitive ancestors counting on their fingers and is now so ingrained in our commerce and culture that it would be very difficult to change to another. Here are some links for those interested in reading more on this topic:

As an example, let's look at how we would talk about a Lotto Matrix if we had only 3 fingers on each hand and most likely were using a Base 6 number system. Since it's all quite arbitrary, our Base 6 system might easily have numerals as follows, where "I" represents a singular object:

0 == (None)

I == "I"

$ == "I I"

@ == "I I I"

# == "I I I I"

5 == "I I I I I"

In this system, counting would proceed as follows:

To describe the Missouri Show Me 5 Lotto game, we would say it has a "( 5, I0@ )" matrix. Assuming Lotto games in this 6 fingered world would follow the convention of not labeling a ball with the numeral 0, our balls would consist of the set [ I - I0@ ].

Now, there used to be a Thread here in the Lottery Systems Forum entitled, "My Digit System for..." Its proponents used a series of filters based on the frequency of the appearance of digits [from the Base I# Number system] in a series of patterns. Thus far, only I such pattern has been identified, but it is apparently believed to be the most powerful one. It is believed that sets of 5 numbers whose total unique digits equal 5 or I0 are more likely to be drawn in this game.

Since the order in which the balls emerge from the machine is not important, and the prizes are awarded based on the matching of the symbols on the balls with the symbols on players' tickets, it is of no consequence how the balls are labeled. In fact, given the ability to print graphics at ticket terminals today, lotteries could choose to use pictures of animals to label the balls in Lotto games! What would our "Digit System" people resort to if lotteries chose to adopt this approach? Would they count tails, feet, and fingers?

With the above in mind, does it make any logical sense to you that components of the labels painted or glued on the balls are of any significance in a lottery draw?

NASHVILLE, TENN United States Member #33372 February 20, 2006 1044 Posts Offline

Posted: November 5, 2010, 9:48 pm - IP Logged

Yes, there is a significance. Should the lottery in China use pictures of animals in their lottery we, as serious lotto players, would assign a numerical value with each animal dipicted. We would convert those meaningless objects into a numerical language (which would then give meaning to them). With a language (and math is a language) we can then "go where Angels fear to tread".

There is only one ball with the number one (1) written on it. When you see the number 1 you can safely assume you have also seen that particular ball before. I know some lotto people switch ball sets but even then, when you see a number you can safely assume you have seen the same ball.

Now as to your other point. There are as many base numbers as there are numbers. Computers use base 2; we count using base 10; assembly language is written in base 6 (or whatever hex is). Which one in use depends on the ease with which working with such numbers is easier. (Quick! Someone untie my tongue!). Would you rather work with 575,757 possibilities, 4096 possibilities, or 16,777,216 possibilities?

If you have 12 patterns which can be either true or false, you have 4096 possiblilities using base 2 and 16,777,216 possibilities using base 4.

I could say more but I think I have made my point.

United States Member #93947 July 10, 2010 2180 Posts Offline

Posted: November 5, 2010, 11:34 pm - IP Logged

Quote: Originally posted by GASMETERGUY on November 5, 2010

Yes, there is a significance. Should the lottery in China use pictures of animals in their lottery we, as serious lotto players, would assign a numerical value with each animal dipicted. We would convert those meaningless objects into a numerical language (which would then give meaning to them). With a language (and math is a language) we can then "go where Angels fear to tread".

There is only one ball with the number one (1) written on it. When you see the number 1 you can safely assume you have also seen that particular ball before. I know some lotto people switch ball sets but even then, when you see a number you can safely assume you have seen the same ball.

Now as to your other point. There are as many base numbers as there are numbers. Computers use base 2; we count using base 10; assembly language is written in base 6 (or whatever hex is). Which one in use depends on the ease with which working with such numbers is easier. (Quick! Someone untie my tongue!). Would you rather work with 575,757 possibilities, 4096 possibilities, or 16,777,216 possibilities?

If you have 12 patterns which can be either true or false, you have 4096 possiblilities using base 2 and 16,777,216 possibilities using base 4.

I could say more but I think I have made my point.

GASMETERGUY,

"If you have 12 patterns which can be either true or false, you have 4096 possiblilities using base 2 and 16,777,216 possibilities using base 4."

In the current context, it's not clear to me what point you're trying to make with this statement.

In any event, it appears you really do believe there are relationships among the balls, relationships that are discoverable by merely assigning an arbitrary order to them. Let's say you have a Lotto machine in your living room with 39 balls in it, each with a unique animal picture on it, and you've been withdrawing [and replacing] 5 balls from it for quite a while, faithfully recording on paper the images of each of the 5 animals for each draw. Let's also assume the balls are identical in weight, diameter, and ink used for the animal pictures. In the future, you can always consider systems based on replacing the animal pictures with labels derived from an arbitrarily based number system. For the time being, just assume you don't know how to count in any system of any base.

What systematic way could people decide which of these 39 balls are "more likely" to emerge in a subsequent draw?

Tx United States Member #4570 May 4, 2004 5180 Posts Offline

Posted: November 6, 2010, 12:15 am - IP Logged

Quote: Originally posted by jimmy4164 on November 5, 2010

GASMETERGUY,

"If you have 12 patterns which can be either true or false, you have 4096 possiblilities using base 2 and 16,777,216 possibilities using base 4."

In the current context, it's not clear to me what point you're trying to make with this statement.

In any event, it appears you really do believe there are relationships among the balls, relationships that are discoverable by merely assigning an arbitrary order to them. Let's say you have a Lotto machine in your living room with 39 balls in it, each with a unique animal picture on it, and you've been withdrawing [and replacing] 5 balls from it for quite a while, faithfully recording on paper the images of each of the 5 animals for each draw. Let's also assume the balls are identical in weight, diameter, and ink used for the animal pictures. In the future, you can always consider systems based on replacing the animal pictures with labels derived from an arbitrarily based number system. For the time being, just assume you don't know how to count in any system of any base.

What systematic way could people decide which of these 39 balls are "more likely" to emerge in a subsequent draw?

--Jimmy4164

I don't know how very many times I have already "said" this, but here we go again:

Statistics is the "Glue" that relates otherwise unrelated events; I might have not said it exactly like so, but close enough.

Only Statistically are "Balls" and or "Numbers" related to each other, but related they for sure are, believe it or not.

I have shown this before some times on some "Old" posts of mine.

Tx United States Member #4570 May 4, 2004 5180 Posts Offline

Posted: November 6, 2010, 12:27 am - IP Logged

The numbers given to the balls are just symbols as stated before by so many including myself, what matters is what works, whatever it might be, if a binary (Two Counts) counting system works best for you prediction technique or method then by all means use it, otherwise use some other counting system, 4, 8, 10, 12, 16, 36 or whatever.

A good enough prediction technique is what really counts.

If you do better with VTracks, then by all means use them, otherwise use pictures of animals, colors or whatever else you do best with.

United States Member #93947 July 10, 2010 2180 Posts Offline

Posted: November 6, 2010, 12:44 am - IP Logged

Quote: Originally posted by LANTERN on November 6, 2010

The numbers given to the balls are just symbols as stated before by so many including myself, what matters is what works, whatever it might be, if a binary (Two Counts) counting system works best for you prediction technique or method then by all means use it, otherwise use some other counting system, 4, 8, 10, 12, 16, 36 or whatever.

A good enough prediction technique is what really counts.

If you do better with VTracks, then by all means use them, otherwise use pictures of animals, colors or whatever else you do best with.

Good Luck!

LANTERN,

"If you do better with VTracks, then by all means use them, otherwise use pictures of animals, colors or whatever else you do best with."

But I don't do well with ANY of these methods. My question above was how you would predict with 39 animal pictures to work with.

United States Member #93947 July 10, 2010 2180 Posts Offline

Posted: November 6, 2010, 1:39 am - IP Logged

Quote: Originally posted by LANTERN on November 6, 2010

I would not, I need a better "Base Ground"

Digits can be given sets of characteristics such as:

Low, High, Even, Odd, In, Out, and when combined then: Width, Sums, Last Digits Of Sums, Roots, Pairs, Triads, Quads, Decades, Etc.

LANTERN,

Characteristics of Digits. When you think about the opening post to this thread, which showed how completely arbitrary the labeling of balls in a Lotto game is, doesn't it seem just a little bit bordering on the absurd to attribute some sort of predictive ability to the results of cutting apart these labels, and then adding and subtracting and counting the results of these splittings and splicings?

Another member addressed this point quite well earlier on.