|
Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today. |
3rd March 2012, 05:29 AM | #201 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 5,154
|
|
3rd March 2012, 05:34 AM | #202 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 5,154
|
|
3rd March 2012, 05:40 AM | #203 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 5,154
|
When I write "unique" and "uniqueness" here I'm referring to the actual numbers, not the 'system' used to select them. A set of numbers selected randomly has no guarantee of being unique, of course, although it affords a better chance than a systematised selection (unless it's a unique system!).
|
3rd March 2012, 05:49 AM | #204 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Lenoir City, TN/Mineral Bluff, GA
Posts: 7,870
|
I'm ignorant of many things mathematical, but...
...as soon as you put forth a set as "unique", does it not render itself "non-unique" as soon as you do so? IOW, as a thought experiment, you come up with an algorithm or scheme which tells you that 32-37-38-41-43 is hugely unlikely to be chosen by a typical player because it has no birthdays, birth months, does not fit a sequential pattern on the card or whatever criteria you select. That very selection is likely to have been chosen by anyone using similar logic to yours, rendering at least to some extent "non-unique". If it hit, there would be many winners who arrived at those numbers using the same or similar reasoning as yours chasing "uniqueness". Right? |
3rd March 2012, 05:54 AM | #205 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 5,154
|
|
3rd March 2012, 06:02 AM | #207 |
Muse
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 839
|
I haven't read all the way through this thread, but the parts I have read demonstrate just about every fallacy about probability going. Dan O's is just another one of them. The probability of getting any specified group (not sequence, which implies that the order in which the balls are drawn is significant - which it isn't) of numbers is the same, irrespective of whether it has occurred before or not. I've seen this fallacy printed in so called authoritative newspaper columns. Probability theory is a minefield waiting forn the unwary: I've watched maths teachers screw it up. |
3rd March 2012, 06:18 AM | #208 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Lenoir City, TN/Mineral Bluff, GA
Posts: 7,870
|
Paul,
I think that's been stipulated repeatedly in this thread. What's being discussed is the ability to meaningfully increase the overall payoff ratio by picking numbers that others are unlikely to home in on, thereby increasing the odds of not having to share a jackpot if you do indeed win. BTW, Dan's contention is clearly fallacious, and reminds me of my ex-wife's inability to think clearly about probability. |
3rd March 2012, 08:01 AM | #209 |
I lost an avatar bet.
Join Date: Dec 2001
Posts: 28,781
|
Well, then all I can say is that I will change my original statement to "the lottery is a sucker's game designed to separate very large numbers of rubes from very trivial amounts of money." ETA: The fact that such people consider it worthwhile is prima facie evidence that they are rubes. MORE ETA: on those occasions when I buy a lottery ticket, I am unquestioningly acting like a rube |
3rd March 2012, 08:23 AM | #210 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Shanghai
Posts: 16,040
|
You realise that there's a difference between whether it's worthwhile to play not knowing if you'll win or not, and whether it was worthwhile to play after you already won, right?
Quote:
They get something from it. They also have to pay for the privilege. What they get is a chance at winning the prize. You need to do math to determine how valuable that chance is.
Quote:
Moreover, yes, it's the potential to make one wealthy that's valuable. That potential is quantifiable, and it's very small. A 1/10 chance to win $100,000 is worth only 1/10th of a 10/10 chance to win $100,000. The logic follows to a 1/100,000,000 chance to win $1,000,000.
Quote:
The benefit is potentially life changing. Which is less than certainly life changing.
Quote:
Quote:
That's pretty weird logic you have.
Quote:
Guess what? People can be wrong.
Quote:
Quote:
|
__________________
"... when people thought the Earth was flat, they were wrong. When people thought the Earth was spherical they were wrong. But if you think that thinking the Earth is spherical is just as wrong as thinking the Earth is flat, then your view is wronger than both of them put together." Isaac Asimov |
|
3rd March 2012, 02:05 PM | #211 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 5,154
|
|
3rd March 2012, 02:07 PM | #212 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Present
Posts: 9,278
|
|
__________________
Paranormal/supernatural beliefs are knowledge placebos. Rumours of a god’s existence have been greatly exaggerated. Make beliefs truths and you get make-believe truths. |
|
3rd March 2012, 02:21 PM | #213 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 5,154
|
What's the difference between being a rube and just acting like a rube? I suppose you'd like to have us all believe that you have occasional and momentary lapses of reason that cause you uncontrollably to go out and buy a lottery ticket. Classic denial behaviour. You're a rube, buddy, through and through!
Actually, you're not. You just consider doing the lottery worthwhile now and then, on those rare occassions when you happen to take your mind off maths. Consider it as letting your hair down a little, if you will! Hey but don't go off the rails now and set up a standing order. They'll have you in the assylum before you know it! |
3rd March 2012, 02:21 PM | #214 |
Muse
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 839
|
|
3rd March 2012, 02:23 PM | #215 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 5,154
|
|
3rd March 2012, 02:25 PM | #216 |
Muse
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 839
|
|
3rd March 2012, 02:34 PM | #217 |
Muse
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 839
|
Forget this one!
|
3rd March 2012, 02:41 PM | #218 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 5,154
|
It's worthwhile either way. Sure, the 'worth' is different for each.
Worthwhiledict: look it up. Don't disagree. Worthwhiledict: look it up again, if you're still confused. Worthwhiledict: just in case Essentiallydict You don't think 14,000,000:1 is essentially zero for all intents and purposes? You don't say! Ah, I see now. By 'comparable' you mean 'contrastable'. Yes, that makes more sense now. Are you seriously claiming that human behaviour that drives people to do the lottery would also drive people to play Russian Roulette for a $50,000 prize, and that people would consider the two equally worthwhile if the Roulette game was available to them? Seriously?! How are you translating the stakes, exactly? Essentiallydict (in case you missed it before). And there lies your problem. Worthwhiledict (although I'm hoping you've got it now!). Worthwhiledict (last ditch attempt). How so? |
3rd March 2012, 02:45 PM | #219 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 5,154
|
|
3rd March 2012, 02:48 PM | #220 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 5,154
|
Everybody posting on this thread considers it worthwhile. Would somebody care to run the numbers on that please, just to be sure. Otherwise I'm gonna go watch sport.
|
3rd March 2012, 03:26 PM | #221 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Lenoir City, TN/Mineral Bluff, GA
Posts: 7,870
|
|
3rd March 2012, 03:36 PM | #222 |
I lost an avatar bet.
Join Date: Dec 2001
Posts: 28,781
|
OK, I'll own it. I am a rube because I buy lottery tickets. If it'll make you happy, I'll change my avatar title from "Hipster alien" to "turnip-truck rube"
<-----RUBE.
Quote:
How odd that you mention letting one's hair down. That is one of the classic taunts that hucksters throw at rubes. |
3rd March 2012, 03:48 PM | #223 |
Banned
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 13,594
|
What everyone so diligently analyzing my post fail to realize is that I hadn't proofread what I had typed and left out a "not". The link was then intended to be proof that the statement itself was wrong.
|
3rd March 2012, 04:09 PM | #224 |
Whingeing Pom
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Slightly to the east of Kernow.
Posts: 1,532
|
I've just belatedly come across this thread. Strangely I bought just such a lottery ticket (1,2,3,4,5) as a potentially life-changing gift for my Secret Santee* last year.
I bought an identical one for myself in case it won and I was tempted to run off with the millions myself instead of passing them on. Surprise! Neither of us became millionaires. *You know who you are. |
__________________
|
|
3rd March 2012, 04:57 PM | #225 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 5,154
|
I disagree; it's a far from trivial point that's being made.
Wrong. A set of numbers comes up most times, and there's usually a jackpot winner(s). You need to be very careful with your wording. Without the "again" the point being made has no meaning. The entire point is about a winning set of numbers winning again! |
3rd March 2012, 05:00 PM | #226 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 5,154
|
|
3rd March 2012, 05:22 PM | #227 |
Banned
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 13,594
|
Are you sure? Many people forget to check the Raffle Numbers after being disappointed in the main draw. There are still 2 outstanding £1 million prizes from December that are unclaimed.
Quote:
|
3rd March 2012, 05:29 PM | #228 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 5,154
|
|
3rd March 2012, 06:12 PM | #229 |
Guest
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 11,831
|
Which lottery are we talking about? Because for the American inter-state lotteries (Mega Millions and Power Ball), usually there's not a jackpot winner.
Mega Millions, for instance, has two draws a week -- and exactly one of those draws has had a jackpot winner since last October. |
3rd March 2012, 06:21 PM | #230 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Lenoir City, TN/Mineral Bluff, GA
Posts: 7,870
|
Southwind17,
We must be talking past each other. I just can't get the points you're trying to make. Someone said it would be a poor bet to bet numbers that had just come up. It is a fact that those numbers would be exactly as probable as any other. That's all I was saying, and I don't get how it's wrong. |
3rd March 2012, 06:22 PM | #231 |
Banned
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 13,594
|
|
3rd March 2012, 09:36 PM | #232 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 5,154
|
I'm referring to the various Australian lotteries (in particular TattsLotto) and the UK National Lottery.
|
3rd March 2012, 09:45 PM | #233 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 5,154
|
This is what you actually wrote that I pointed out is wrong:
That's patently wrong. A set of numbers usually does come up, at least in relation to the Australian weekly TattsLotto, as these results clearly demonstrate (Division 1 is deemed the jackpot). |
3rd March 2012, 09:50 PM | #234 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 5,154
|
|
3rd March 2012, 11:22 PM | #235 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Shanghai
Posts: 16,040
|
|
__________________
"... when people thought the Earth was flat, they were wrong. When people thought the Earth was spherical they were wrong. But if you think that thinking the Earth is spherical is just as wrong as thinking the Earth is flat, then your view is wronger than both of them put together." Isaac Asimov |
|
4th March 2012, 05:21 AM | #236 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Lenoir City, TN/Mineral Bluff, GA
Posts: 7,870
|
When I read Southwind17's response, I realized how he interpreted my statement, and that I needed to add the word "particular".
Then I scrolled down and you beat me to it. Thanks! Of course some set of numbers will come up. That seems too obvious to state. And sometimes there will be a player who selected that set and sometimes not. Hopefully that's straightened out - I really hate to be called "wrong" when what I'm stating is self evident. There are enough other times when I'm legitimately wrong - just ask my wife! |
4th March 2012, 05:29 AM | #237 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Lenoir City, TN/Mineral Bluff, GA
Posts: 7,870
|
No, a set of numbers always does come up - nothing "usually" about it.
You're assuming an unstated premise here - that the discussion is whether any given draw will have a winner. Of course, some do and some don't. To be clearer, you should have said, "A winning set of numbers usually does come up...". And the odds of that happening can be calculated, depending on the type of draw and number of tickets purchased. Again, sorry if I wasn't clear. Communication is a two way street. |
4th March 2012, 03:51 PM | #238 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 5,154
|
|
4th March 2012, 06:13 PM | #239 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Lenoir City, TN/Mineral Bluff, GA
Posts: 7,870
|
|
4th March 2012, 07:10 PM | #240 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 5,154
|
I think the problem here is that we seem to be at cross purposes as to exactly what 'come up' means. You seem to be suggesting that you're referring to the numbers drawn, whereas I'm referring to a set of numbers selected and entered. In the context of your original statement, however, it seems clear to me that you were referring to exactly what I am, namely a set of numbers selected and entered:
Ironically, the "again" is now critical to your meaning! |
Thread Tools | |
|
|