Subject:
|
Re: Chaotic Systems... (was: Re: Problems with Christianity and Darwinism)
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Thu, 25 Jan 2001 17:00:25 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1216 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, David Eaton writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Scott Arthur writes:
> > 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 combination 1, 2, 3 has never appeared in the UK.
>
> 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 do with it... if it were a live drawing, chances are
> they'd be kinda nervous and accept it, but investigations would follow
> nonetheless... if it were a 'behind closed doors' drawing, perhaps they'd
> re-draw numbers... Dunno... Certainly I'd hope they'd let it go through...
> But in all liklihood people would definitely find it a suspicious result.
>
> DaveE
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 of the improbable sequence under
discussion. Those who choose 1 through 6 (my mother is one) would be more
than a little aggrieved.
I know that 1-6 is just as likely to be selected as any other ‘random’
combination. However, I can’t help thinking that any selection is more
likely to a non-sequential combination. Further, if a sequential combination
were to be selected - it would be slightly less likely to be that one than
almost any other.
Scott A
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
 | | Probability: (Was: Re: Chaotic Systems...)
|
| (...) 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)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Chaotic Systems... (was: Re: Problems with Christianity and Darwinism)
|
| (...) 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)
|
298 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
