Welcome Guest
Log In | Register )
You last visited December 8, 2016, 4:55 pm
All times shown are
Eastern Time (GMT-5:00)

Why Do Mathematicians Consider The Lottery Random

Topic closed. 261 replies. Last post 5 years ago by Boney526.

Page 5 of 18
52
PrintE-mailLink
Boney526's avatar - NjlpLogo
New Jersey
United States
Member #99032
October 18, 2010
1439 Posts
Offline
Posted: August 23, 2011, 4:35 pm - IP Logged

OK I'm not here to make any body angry, so whatever I'm done.

 

I'm not gonna keep on trying to explain anything slightly mathemtical - even though this is the math forum.

Wow just had to post one last thing.

 

It's not even the math forum.  haha

    jarasan's avatar - new patrick.gif
    Harbinger
    D.C./MD.
    United States
    Member #44103
    July 30, 2006
    5583 Posts
    Online
    Posted: August 23, 2011, 8:32 pm - IP Logged

    This is true - that we don't have a unified code of physics - but the reason it's considered random is because you can't know the variables that will be in place to make those balls come out of the machine.

     

    The physics are understood, it's just that you can't plug in X, Y, Z etc into whatever complicated equations until you see all of those variables, or put more simply, you can only calculate the result if you're a supercomputer watching the draw, by which point, you can't place a bet.

     

    Actually there was one guy who tried to place a 5000 dollar roulette bet on a single number to show, attempting to use the physics of the ball/wheel to predict where it would land.  The Casino allowed him a few seconds to place his bet, and he was actually just one slot off.  So given certain conditions like that, it's theoritically possible to predict the result, but because we aren't in such a position - it's not.

     

    So we don't have a unifying theory, but the theories we DO have show that the Lottery is random, in the sense that when placing the bet, no system can give you an advantage - this has been tested over the long term.

     

    I do understand what you're saying - it's just not based on reason, it's based on faith.  Like I said in a previous post, all accepted science has proven that it's random, you have to prove that science wrong, or prove your science correct in order to say it's real - especially when it's so far out compared to what is accepted science.

     

    If you're arguing that because it's a physical process, there are things that influence it, so it's not completely random, then fine, I suppose you're right.  But those things that influence it, are either tampering - or random given that you don't have that information - which nobody does until the draw is occuring.

    Ok,  I'll try one more time.

    Boney writes: "The physics are understood, it's just that you can't plug in X, Y, Z etc into whatever complicated equations until you see all of those variables,,"

    You have to forget about Newtonian measurements and Crays etc.  You won't need to measure anything during anything.

    Boney writes: "So we don't have a unifying theory, but the theories we DO have show that the Lottery is random, in the sense that when placing the bet, no system can give you an advantage - this has been tested over the long term."

    We also had a theory that the earth was flat for thousands of years,  we also had a theory that we were the center of the universe.  Theories are just that,  they can be made obsolete.

    Never say never. 

    You ever see the movie Minority Report?  Not saying it is going to happen like that ..................... I know it is sci fi., but try and think along those lines.

    Who ever thought just 20 years ago we could post something on line and have it instantly available to anybody on this entire planet?  Think about what goes on during a cell phone conversation.   Satellite telemetry?  Did you know the length of a day changed during the earthquake in Japan and "probably" today from this shake up on the east coast?  Who saw that coming?  With all the theory and science we have,  we got a long way to go.

      rdgrnr's avatar - walt
      Way back up in them dadgum hills, son!
      United States
      Member #73904
      April 28, 2009
      14903 Posts
      Offline
      Posted: August 23, 2011, 9:09 pm - IP Logged

      Ok,  I'll try one more time.

      Boney writes: "The physics are understood, it's just that you can't plug in X, Y, Z etc into whatever complicated equations until you see all of those variables,,"

      You have to forget about Newtonian measurements and Crays etc.  You won't need to measure anything during anything.

      Boney writes: "So we don't have a unifying theory, but the theories we DO have show that the Lottery is random, in the sense that when placing the bet, no system can give you an advantage - this has been tested over the long term."

      We also had a theory that the earth was flat for thousands of years,  we also had a theory that we were the center of the universe.  Theories are just that,  they can be made obsolete.

      Never say never. 

      You ever see the movie Minority Report?  Not saying it is going to happen like that ..................... I know it is sci fi., but try and think along those lines.

      Who ever thought just 20 years ago we could post something on line and have it instantly available to anybody on this entire planet?  Think about what goes on during a cell phone conversation.   Satellite telemetry?  Did you know the length of a day changed during the earthquake in Japan and "probably" today from this shake up on the east coast?  Who saw that coming?  With all the theory and science we have,  we got a long way to go.

      "Who ever thought just 20 years ago we could post something on line and have it instantly available to anybody on this entire planet?"

      Who is Al Gore?

       

      Dress Stains for a thousand, Alex!


                                                   
                           
                                               

       

       

       

       

                                                                                                         

      "The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing"

                                                                                                  --Edmund Burke

       

       

        jarasan's avatar - new patrick.gif
        Harbinger
        D.C./MD.
        United States
        Member #44103
        July 30, 2006
        5583 Posts
        Online
        Posted: August 23, 2011, 9:27 pm - IP Logged

        "Who ever thought just 20 years ago we could post something on line and have it instantly available to anybody on this entire planet?"

        Who is Al Gore?

         

        Dress Stains for a thousand, Alex!

        Al Gore Vidal is my hero.

        His latest escapade and quest includes the monster MAN BEAR PIG.!

        manbearpigposter

          Boney526's avatar - NjlpLogo
          New Jersey
          United States
          Member #99032
          October 18, 2010
          1439 Posts
          Offline
          Posted: August 23, 2011, 10:11 pm - IP Logged

          Ok,  I'll try one more time.

          Boney writes: "The physics are understood, it's just that you can't plug in X, Y, Z etc into whatever complicated equations until you see all of those variables,,"

          You have to forget about Newtonian measurements and Crays etc.  You won't need to measure anything during anything.

          Boney writes: "So we don't have a unifying theory, but the theories we DO have show that the Lottery is random, in the sense that when placing the bet, no system can give you an advantage - this has been tested over the long term."

          We also had a theory that the earth was flat for thousands of years,  we also had a theory that we were the center of the universe.  Theories are just that,  they can be made obsolete.

          Never say never. 

          You ever see the movie Minority Report?  Not saying it is going to happen like that ..................... I know it is sci fi., but try and think along those lines.

          Who ever thought just 20 years ago we could post something on line and have it instantly available to anybody on this entire planet?  Think about what goes on during a cell phone conversation.   Satellite telemetry?  Did you know the length of a day changed during the earthquake in Japan and "probably" today from this shake up on the east coast?  Who saw that coming?  With all the theory and science we have,  we got a long way to go.

          It's really not worth your time.

           

          I see where you're coming from, but the Earth's no longer considered flat because somebody PROVED it to be so.  I saw that example coming from a mile away - it's just not comparable.  Even if you beat the long odds of beating the lottery, that's not proof in itself - because statistics shows that somebody will be lucky enough to win, even if the medium term.

           

          "Boney writes: "So we don't have a unifying theory, but the theories we DO have show that the Lottery is random, in the sense that when placing the bet, no system can give you an advantage - this has been tested over the long term."

          We also had a theory that the earth was flat for thousands of years,  we also had a theory that we were the center of the universe.  Theories are just that,  they can be made obsolete.

          Never say never."

           

          I never said never, I said that there's no tangible proof, and without that - you must assume everything that has tangible proof is far "more true"

           

          Can be made obsolete....  Good luck proving that statistics is wrong, but I think you will have a very hard time.  These mathemetics weren't developed in the last 20 years, they've been in the works for thousands of years.

           

          You're right, though, in a sense.  If I just ignore Physics, Math, and Reason, then I should believe is possible to beat the lottery with a system.  Too bad those things explain the way the universe works far better than any alternative which has been mentioned, but never explained, because it either hasn't been worked out, but a better possibility is that this alternative is just incorrect.

           

          For any method to reliably predict the Lottery - in other words, to prove that the lottery is not random - you'd have to predict it over hundreds of thousands of draws, getting far above the odds, and as far as I know, that's never occured.

           

          Oh BTW - Scientists have known for a long time that Earthquakes slightly change the Earth's spin.  They can't really reliably predict how much and in what way it will change the Earth's spin in the same way that it's hard to predict the force the Earthquake will produce, or when it will occur.  But I don't really think it was a relevent example.


            United States
            Member #75358
            June 1, 2009
            5345 Posts
            Offline
            Posted: August 23, 2011, 10:29 pm - IP Logged

            Ok,  I'll try one more time.

            Boney writes: "The physics are understood, it's just that you can't plug in X, Y, Z etc into whatever complicated equations until you see all of those variables,,"

            You have to forget about Newtonian measurements and Crays etc.  You won't need to measure anything during anything.

            Boney writes: "So we don't have a unifying theory, but the theories we DO have show that the Lottery is random, in the sense that when placing the bet, no system can give you an advantage - this has been tested over the long term."

            We also had a theory that the earth was flat for thousands of years,  we also had a theory that we were the center of the universe.  Theories are just that,  they can be made obsolete.

            Never say never. 

            You ever see the movie Minority Report?  Not saying it is going to happen like that ..................... I know it is sci fi., but try and think along those lines.

            Who ever thought just 20 years ago we could post something on line and have it instantly available to anybody on this entire planet?  Think about what goes on during a cell phone conversation.   Satellite telemetry?  Did you know the length of a day changed during the earthquake in Japan and "probably" today from this shake up on the east coast?  Who saw that coming?  With all the theory and science we have,  we got a long way to go.

            Boney the tiger lives in a linear timeline. Nothing changes...

              Boney526's avatar - NjlpLogo
              New Jersey
              United States
              Member #99032
              October 18, 2010
              1439 Posts
              Offline
              Posted: August 23, 2011, 10:31 pm - IP Logged

              Boney the tiger lives in a linear timeline. Nothing changes...

              OK I'm sorry I believe things have to be proven to be considered true.  That's how science works.  You point to wagering systems as a science - but if asked to show proof you just say I'm clueless.

               

              Now that's a convincing arguement What?

                jarasan's avatar - new patrick.gif
                Harbinger
                D.C./MD.
                United States
                Member #44103
                July 30, 2006
                5583 Posts
                Online
                Posted: August 23, 2011, 10:32 pm - IP Logged

                It's really not worth your time.

                 

                I see where you're coming from, but the Earth's no longer considered flat because somebody PROVED it to be so.  I saw that example coming from a mile away - it's just not comparable.  Even if you beat the long odds of beating the lottery, that's not proof in itself - because statistics shows that somebody will be lucky enough to win, even if the medium term.

                 

                "Boney writes: "So we don't have a unifying theory, but the theories we DO have show that the Lottery is random, in the sense that when placing the bet, no system can give you an advantage - this has been tested over the long term."

                We also had a theory that the earth was flat for thousands of years,  we also had a theory that we were the center of the universe.  Theories are just that,  they can be made obsolete.

                Never say never."

                 

                I never said never, I said that there's no tangible proof, and without that - you must assume everything that has tangible proof is far "more true"

                 

                Can be made obsolete....  Good luck proving that statistics is wrong, but I think you will have a very hard time.  These mathemetics weren't developed in the last 20 years, they've been in the works for thousands of years.

                 

                You're right, though, in a sense.  If I just ignore Physics, Math, and Reason, then I should believe is possible to beat the lottery with a system.  Too bad those things explain the way the universe works far better than any alternative which has been mentioned, but never explained, because it either hasn't been worked out, but a better possibility is that this alternative is just incorrect.

                 

                For any method to reliably predict the Lottery - in other words, to prove that the lottery is not random - you'd have to predict it over hundreds of thousands of draws, getting far above the odds, and as far as I know, that's never occured.

                 

                Oh BTW - Scientists have known for a long time that Earthquakes slightly change the Earth's spin.  They can't really reliably predict how much and in what way it will change the Earth's spin in the same way that it's hard to predict the force the Earthquake will produce, or when it will occur.  But I don't really think it was a relevent example.

                You're right it is a waste of my time.  Time is a key word. 

                http://www.thebigview.com/spacetime/index.html.

                  Boney526's avatar - NjlpLogo
                  New Jersey
                  United States
                  Member #99032
                  October 18, 2010
                  1439 Posts
                  Offline
                  Posted: August 23, 2011, 10:48 pm - IP Logged

                  You're right it is a waste of my time.  Time is a key word. 

                  http://www.thebigview.com/spacetime/index.html.

                  Einstein had an inspirational vision.

                   

                  The "abstract thinking" you had mentioned.  He then went on to seek proof of what he thought was true.  Which lead to our understanding of the universe.

                   

                  See the key difference - he seeked proof and discovered it.

                   

                  I'm responding to what I THINK was your point.  But I guess I'm wasting my time.  People without much of a credible arguement tend to make vague statements and not respond to any serious arguement against them.  I'm seeing that here...  So I think it's time to go.

                   

                  Like EG:  When Joker just said nothing every changes in my world.  That's not what I said at all, I just said that to make claims that mathemetics, statistics, physics, etc. are all wrong, you must at very least present some proof.

                   

                  And all the "proof" I've seen here fit within the models of physics, math and especially statistics that are expected under current models of the universe.


                    United States
                    Member #75358
                    June 1, 2009
                    5345 Posts
                    Offline
                    Posted: August 23, 2011, 10:52 pm - IP Logged

                    OK I'm sorry I believe things have to be proven to be considered true.  That's how science works.  You point to wagering systems as a science - but if asked to show proof you just say I'm clueless.

                     

                    Now that's a convincing arguement What?

                    Anyone who says they know for sure there is no alternative, even without proof shows me they are arrogant and ignorant. Just because YOU haven't heard about it, doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Jarasan gave many good examples but you choose to ignore them. That's why you're clueless, not because you're an idiot. You read like you have some knowledge on the subject, but your arrogance speaks volumes.

                    There's an old saying, don't remember it exactly... "The more you know, the less you really understand.", or something like that...

                    Einstein once said that 1+1 doesn't really equal 2. I told that to my friends many many years ago, and they looked at me like I had two heads. I even explained to them why he said that, and how he proved it. My friends who I told this to weren't exactly dumb either. But they fervently denied any credibility to that statement by Einstein, even after repeated explanations. It is a classic example of some who refuse to think outside the box even for a moment. Their arrogance eclipses reason. When I told them to ask others If they'd heard of this before, they agreed. Turns out they came back and appologized to me after asking a few people they trusted as more intelligent than I.

                      Boney526's avatar - NjlpLogo
                      New Jersey
                      United States
                      Member #99032
                      October 18, 2010
                      1439 Posts
                      Offline
                      Posted: August 23, 2011, 10:57 pm - IP Logged

                      I didn't say there was no alternative.

                       

                      I said there had to be proof for it to be credible, and I that I have serious doubts as to whether their is a reasonable alternative to the laws of statistics dictating random events.

                       

                      In fact, I quite literally said that as far as somebody consistently beating the lottery in the long term, over thousands of draws that AS FAR AS I KNOW it's never happened.

                        Boney526's avatar - NjlpLogo
                        New Jersey
                        United States
                        Member #99032
                        October 18, 2010
                        1439 Posts
                        Offline
                        Posted: August 23, 2011, 11:01 pm - IP Logged

                        My main point is anybody can make a claim like your, without proof, and stick by their guns.

                         

                        Just don't expect anybody to believe it because there is no proof.  If Einstein never put out his theory - if nobody tested it by viewing the stars that the sun passed by during an eclipse - we wouldn't believe in half the stuff we do now.

                         

                        If you honestly believe these things, which I - and the vast majority of people - don't, you must at least offer proof, instead of just calling me clueless, arrogant, or what have you for pointing towards proven mathemtical models.

                          Boney526's avatar - NjlpLogo
                          New Jersey
                          United States
                          Member #99032
                          October 18, 2010
                          1439 Posts
                          Offline
                          Posted: August 23, 2011, 11:10 pm - IP Logged

                          WAIT WAIT WAIT.

                           

                          Joker respond to this one, feel free to ignore anything else.

                           

                          What examples did Jarasan give that I ignored, I thought I replied to all, or most of them.  He did respond to a few of my arguements - like when he said I have to forget about Newtonian gravity.  Not really a great response, but at least a response.

                           

                          I thought I did respond to all of them, I don't think I ignored anything he wrote.

                           

                          So please point out to me what I ignored that he said.  I'd be happy to give a response.

                           

                          And I'll tell you what you've been ignoring.  Why do you feel as if this is a science, yet it's one where proof is unnessary.  You can just ignore current models because they're "just theories", and aren't complete?

                           

                          Not being complete doesn't make them flat out wrong.  And for the record, Statistics is pretty complete.  Much more so - than say - the attempts to unify Quantum physics and General Relativity.

                            Boney526's avatar - NjlpLogo
                            New Jersey
                            United States
                            Member #99032
                            October 18, 2010
                            1439 Posts
                            Offline
                            Posted: August 23, 2011, 11:19 pm - IP Logged

                            And just want to point out something else Einstein said.  "Nobody can possibly win at roulette unless they steal money while the croupie isn't looking"

                             

                            Now I don't believe this to be true, because you can win by getting lucky, but his point is clear.


                              United States
                              Member #75358
                              June 1, 2009
                              5345 Posts
                              Offline
                              Posted: August 23, 2011, 11:34 pm - IP Logged

                              My main point is anybody can make a claim like your, without proof, and stick by their guns.

                               

                              Just don't expect anybody to believe it because there is no proof.  If Einstein never put out his theory - if nobody tested it by viewing the stars that the sun passed by during an eclipse - we wouldn't believe in half the stuff we do now.

                               

                              If you honestly believe these things, which I - and the vast majority of people - don't, you must at least offer proof, instead of just calling me clueless, arrogant, or what have you for pointing towards proven mathemtical models.

                              Until your mathemeticians prove Koycerins wagering method is false, you stand in the same line as the unproven. It's not always the burden of proof one way only.

                                 
                                Page 5 of 18