 | | Re: Chaotic Systems... (was: Re: Problems with Christianity and Darwinism) —Scott Arthur
|
| | | (...) If the UK lottery usage is anything to go by, I would avoid those numbers. I am sure I am right in saying it is the most common combination selected. If/when you win, you will have to share it with a lot of other players! That said, the (...) (23 years ago, 25-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | |
| | | | | Re: Chaotic Systems... (was: Re: Problems with Christianity and Darwinism) —David Eaton
|
| | | | (...) Actually, I honestly wonder whether they'd 'let' such a combination pass... I'm willing to bet that if they got the combination 1,2,3,4,5,6, that lots of people would insist that it was rigged, even if it didn't happen.... I dunno what they'd (...) (23 years ago, 25-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Chaotic Systems... (was: Re: Problems with Christianity and Darwinism) —Scott Arthur
|
| | | | (...) Almost all the draws in the UK are live. There are “independent adjudicators” present to confirm that there is no shenanigans underway – what these people’s skills are I do not know. I doubt that you could discount a draw due to the selection (...) (23 years ago, 25-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Chaotic Systems... (was: Re: Problems with Christianity and Darwinism) —Scott Arthur
|
| | | | | For “sequential” read “consecutive” (...) (23 years ago, 25-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | | | Re: Chaotic Systems... (was: Re: Problems with Christianity and Darwinism) —Frank Filz
|
| | | | | | (...) Well, definitely such a sequence is much less likely than a more "random looking" sequence. If you 6 numbers are the digits 1-9, there are only 4 such sequences compared to a total of 9!/3! sequences (if each digit can only occur once, 9^6 (...) (23 years ago, 25-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | Probability: (Was: Re: Chaotic Systems...) —David Eaton
|
| | | | (...) Most definitely, but that's only because there are more non-sequential combinations. But any PARTICULAR non-sequential combination is just as likely, obviously... (...) And again, the same applies... given that it'll be sequential, the (...) (23 years ago, 25-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Probability: (Was: Re: Chaotic Systems...) —Scott Arthur
|
| | | | (...) I'd get rid of the 1/3 chance and take the 1/2. Regardless of the laws of probability, sods law still says I will not win! Scott A (23 years ago, 26-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Probability: (Was: Re: Chaotic Systems...) —David Eaton
|
| | | | (...) Actually, the odds that it's in the OTHER door (the one you didn't pick) are now up to 2/3, not just 1/2! I remember that this question actually generated a couple debates from a magazine and several colleges who were disputing the probability (...) (23 years ago, 26-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Probability: (Was: Re: Chaotic Systems...) —Frank Filz
|
| | | | (...) Yea, one place it was a big deal in was Ask Marylyn (sp?) in Parade. There's several ways to analyze it and get to the 2/3 chance. The one I realized yesterday is the simplest (but perhaps not most intuitive) is to realize that by switching, (...) (23 years ago, 26-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | |
