Texas United States Member #86154 January 30, 2010 1649 Posts Offline

Posted: June 10, 2012, 11:27 am - IP Logged

Quote: Originally posted by skypekaitas6 on March 26, 2012

i am a master lotto keno winner and if i win on tues its not by luck or mathematics, its possible to predict and i am trying to do so with 46 blocks thorugh the agents on internet as i am in new zealand. the total of two winning numbers is 75 i predict this is for certain and there was 0 maths involved in the prediction , in fact there is 0 maths in the entire prediction at all times.

maths is required to mark the numbers. as all the time i have or see winning numbers in a various fashions like : in a group of 5 numbers all possible one or two or three or four or five to match with another group of 10 numbers to match respectively and so on, finally all to instantly give me all the possible 6 number or 7 or 5 number combinations possible with on repititions and play the entire lot, and certainly i will get the jackpot for cetain 1 or more out of 30 tries . average my predictions wont cost more than half spent in a period of 30 tries or 5 years.

Well, I see numbers all over your post here which means that you do, in fact, use math for your approach to Keno. Agree? You're also figuring in overall odds as well which is a by-product of math. To arrive at one number or combination, you must begin from one. "a group of 5 numbers", "another group of 10 numbers", 6 number or 7 or 5 number combinations"... there's math in everything you're doing otherwise you're just guessing.

Economy class Belgium Member #123700 February 27, 2012 4035 Posts Offline

Posted: June 17, 2012, 6:38 am - IP Logged

Quote: Originally posted by Lucky Loser on June 10, 2012

Well, I see numbers all over your post here which means that you do, in fact, use math for your approach to Keno. Agree? You're also figuring in overall odds as well which is a by-product of math. To arrive at one number or combination, you must begin from one. "a group of 5 numbers", "another group of 10 numbers", 6 number or 7 or 5 number combinations"... there's math in everything you're doing otherwise you're just guessing.

L.L.

The lack of understanding combinations leads Kaitas to incapacity of filtering combinations.

"It seems like Nature has some secret that lets it make complicated stuff in an effortless way," Stephen Wolfram recently told an audience at Oxford University’s Mathematical Institute.

In his talk, that you can nowwatch online, Wolfram, the scientist behind Mathematica andWolfram Alpha, explored how advances in computation could benefit mathematics.

One of the key ideas he put forward was 'computational irreducibility' – the idea that some computations cannot be sped up by any shortcut, the only way to figure out what is going to happen is to simulate each step.

"People sometimes say that the reason the mathematics that we have is the way it is, is because that's what we need to describe the natural world, I think that's just not true," he commented.

He suggested that much of the reason mathematics covers the areas it does is historical, building on work begun by the first mathematicians in ancient Babylon.

Computational irreducibility, he said, is a 'junior version of ‘undecidability'' – the idea that when you ask the question of what will ultimately happen the answer is something that is undecidable. Whilst there are over three million theorems in mathematics these are all things that turned out to be decidable/provable.

There isn’t much undecidability in mathematics because maths is set up to examine those things its methods can make progress on: "mathematics has navigated through these kind of narrow paths in which you don't run into rampant undecidability all over the place."

Ask mathematical questions at random, he suggested, and you would soon run into undecidability. But perhaps through exploring the space of all possible theorems, using tools such as Wolfram Alpha, you might find new paths.

He described the point of Wolfram Alpha as 'to collect as much knowledge as possible and make it computable', and that this approach could be applied to find out which theorems about a particular structure or system were 'interesting' or 'powerful'.

A pilot study focusing on one particular area of maths, continued fractions, is already showing that the process of organizing theorems in a way that’s systematically computable is leading to new advances, he said.

In a contrast to the days when mathematicians did all of their calculations by hand, the future of mathematical process could be that, by entering some details of a system, within seconds they would automatically see a range of theorems about it.

This would give a window on what he called a "vast ocean of unexplored generalisation ofmathematicsthat exists in this computational universe of possible systems."

"It seems like Nature has some secret that lets it make complicated stuff in an effortless way," Stephen Wolfram recently told an audience at Oxford University’s Mathematical Institute.

In his talk, that you can nowwatch online, Wolfram, the scientist behind Mathematica andWolfram Alpha, explored how advances in computation could benefit mathematics.

One of the key ideas he put forward was 'computational irreducibility' – the idea that some computations cannot be sped up by any shortcut, the only way to figure out what is going to happen is to simulate each step.

"People sometimes say that the reason the mathematics that we have is the way it is, is because that's what we need to describe the natural world, I think that's just not true," he commented.

He suggested that much of the reason mathematics covers the areas it does is historical, building on work begun by the first mathematicians in ancient Babylon.

Computational irreducibility, he said, is a 'junior version of ‘undecidability'' – the idea that when you ask the question of what will ultimately happen the answer is something that is undecidable. Whilst there are over three million theorems in mathematics these are all things that turned out to be decidable/provable.

There isn’t much undecidability in mathematics because maths is set up to examine those things its methods can make progress on: "mathematics has navigated through these kind of narrow paths in which you don't run into rampant undecidability all over the place."

Ask mathematical questions at random, he suggested, and you would soon run into undecidability. But perhaps through exploring the space of all possible theorems, using tools such as Wolfram Alpha, you might find new paths.

He described the point of Wolfram Alpha as 'to collect as much knowledge as possible and make it computable', and that this approach could be applied to find out which theorems about a particular structure or system were 'interesting' or 'powerful'.

A pilot study focusing on one particular area of maths, continued fractions, is already showing that the process of organizing theorems in a way that’s systematically computable is leading to new advances, he said.

In a contrast to the days when mathematicians did all of their calculations by hand, the future of mathematical process could be that, by entering some details of a system, within seconds they would automatically see a range of theorems about it.

This would give a window on what he called a "vast ocean of unexplored generalisation ofmathematicsthat exists in this computational universe of possible systems."

United States Member #124493 March 14, 2012 7023 Posts Offline

Posted: July 11, 2012, 8:08 am - IP Logged

Quote: Originally posted by SergeM on July 10, 2012

I watched the video and I see no use for it. A computer works with bits, zeros and ones.

I have seen no algorithm in the movie, there was one single explanation in the whole video.

well i think the use in the video is the idea of thinking about structures...

if you use math then you are looking for structures within the matrix...structures of the "variables" underlying the actual numbers...in addition to the numbers themselves...(as is above, so is below)

He says look for interesting structures...

and how to create thereoms to define and locate those structures...

But the first thing to ask is...what interesting structures appear when you study lottery results?...

its more than just count of hits in 100 games...but what interesting structures lie behind those hits...

i think the point of the video is using generalized mathematics to automate computing using descriptive theorems for interesting structures...

so applied to lottery maybe the computation can give you a snapshots of the "evolving interesting structures"

Economy class Belgium Member #123700 February 27, 2012 4035 Posts Offline

Posted: July 11, 2012, 5:14 pm - IP Logged

Quote: Originally posted by LottoBoner on July 11, 2012

well i think the use in the video is the idea of thinking about structures...

if you use math then you are looking for structures within the matrix...structures of the "variables" underlying the actual numbers...in addition to the numbers themselves...(as is above, so is below)

He says look for interesting structures...

and how to create thereoms to define and locate those structures...

But the first thing to ask is...what interesting structures appear when you study lottery results?...

its more than just count of hits in 100 games...but what interesting structures lie behind those hits...

i think the point of the video is using generalized mathematics to automate computing using descriptive theorems for interesting structures...

so applied to lottery maybe the computation can give you a snapshots of the "evolving interesting structures"

The video show pictures created by algorithms. The algorithms aren't shown.

There was an algorithm for random but it wasn't explained.

United States Member #5599 July 13, 2004 1185 Posts Offline

Posted: July 11, 2012, 5:57 pm - IP Logged

Quote: Originally posted by SergeM on July 11, 2012

The video show pictures created by algorithms. The algorithms aren't shown.

There was an algorithm for random but it wasn't explained.

The video is useless.

Hi SergeM,

All the aticles/videos I have supplied, or will supply, are potential ways for analysis. None of them will give you alogrithims, as appled tp the lottery, on a silver platter. If you find merit in thier concepts, it will require extra work on your part to research and adapt the concept to the lottery. The infomation I'm supplying is only meant to stimulate the developement of new methods. Of course, you can continue using the recycled methods with different twists that have been floating around on the LP for a long time (with very little success).

Thanks for your input. All opinions are welcome. *S*

You are a slave to the choices you have made. jk

Even a blind squirrel will occasioanlly find an acorn.

bgonÃ§alves Brasil Member #92564 June 9, 2010 2126 Posts Offline

Posted: July 13, 2012, 11:00 am - IP Logged

Hello, jking below the matrix of a lottery perfect 39/5 Hit by 100% 4/1 to first digit of course missing endings. okay The lottery also could see the lines twisted like the string of DNA (genetic code) Convert the genetic code to binary, and twisting lines like lorenz attractor For there comes a moment in time the lines cross diagonal form as the string of DNA, the major problem is to see these patterns convert to lotteries

United States Member #5599 July 13, 2004 1185 Posts Offline

Posted: July 13, 2012, 4:17 pm - IP Logged

Hi RL/DrSan,

Both approaches look interesting, but my focus is elsewhere right now. Of the articles I posted, the ones on bursty behavior will probably get my attention first.

I see potential in the probabilities they can produce and that it will give some direction on which are the best numbers to bet. So, I will defer any comments on what you have both posted because I simply haven't done my homework enough to feel like I can give you a quality reply.

RL- Thanks again for posting your program. The Double Odd and Double Even filters are simply outstanding.

A member some time back posted an intriguing idea about repeatability. Basically he said that out of the group of numbers picked in the big games, that reliable reduction percentages can be produced by comparing the amount of numbers that can and will repeat over differents windows in time.

Another thought for you is...have you tried applying your filters to other filters? Try a last time picked history, for example, and apply the same concepts you've used on the historical picks. That is currently something that I am plugging away at now. I beleive that applying good reduction techniques to all my sub-filters is as important as applying them to the numbers picked.

Anyway, best of luck to the both of you and I'm sorry I couldn't respond intelligently to your ideas.

You are a slave to the choices you have made. jk

Even a blind squirrel will occasioanlly find an acorn.

United States Member #124493 March 14, 2012 7023 Posts Offline

Posted: July 13, 2012, 5:30 pm - IP Logged

Quote: Originally posted by dr san on July 13, 2012

Hello, jking below the matrix of a lottery perfect 39/5 Hit by 100% 4/1 to first digit of course missing endings. okay The lottery also could see the lines twisted like the string of DNA (genetic code) Convert the genetic code to binary, and twisting lines like lorenz attractor For there comes a moment in time the lines cross diagonal form as the string of DNA, the major problem is to see these patterns convert to lotteries