| |
| Lottos' Design |
« View previous topic :: View next topic » |
| Author |
Message
|
| witch_wyzwurd |
 Posted: Sat Jun 28, 2008 1:29 pm Post subject: Lottos' Design |
 |
|
Forum Freshman
Joined: 27 Jun 2008
Posts: 13
|
I have completed a few steps in my attempt to prove that at its basic level, reality's flow of information, the mechanics controlling time and events, is preprogrammed. One of my tests to reinforce my study is to show that lottery numbers are not a luck of the draw or rely on odds, but follow a nonrandom preprogrammed sequence. My goal is to team up with persons who are knowledgeable enough to help me crack the code. I have started working out 5 different lottery games in 5 different States. I decided that if I was going to show that there was a nonrandom sequence in lottery draws, the chance that a fundamental sequence would appear in 5 different lottery games from 5 different States, each with different characteristics (amount of numbers chosen per draw, the highest number possible in a particular lottery game, etc.), would be small. I found the opposite to be true.
If your belief system overrides what it takes to become a part of this scientific endeavor or if you are frightened that somehow discovering reality is preprogrammed will make your life seem less valuable, then I urge you not to reply. Also, I am not interested in debating if one thinks my study is bunk, since I would only be battling with your ego and not arguing science.
I've chosen not to display the nature of my work until I receive some replies affirming interest to help, because I would find it a waste of time to display my work and have it just sit here stagnant. I am not looking to humor anyone here, so serious inquiries are only be asked for.
Please, do not fill this thread up with posts that are not serious inquiries (like the 2 already posted below). Thank you. 
Good Day 
Last edited by witch_wyzwurd on Sun Jun 29, 2008 5:13 am; edited 2 times in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
| SolomonGrundy |
| Posted: Sat Jun 28, 2008 6:38 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Forum Junior
Joined: 09 Sep 2007
Posts: 241
Location: USA
|
I hope truly that you will crack the code but will be hard and i tell you why
... because as facts of life the lottery has back stage games that they made and sadly sometimes the wining numbers are alocated to the one that must win , anyway is true that all is preprgamed to happen but the results are so diferent and come as variables ,but in the long run are constants ,and only after they are egualed by some termorary results.
The algorithm as you allready know is so flexible that if you try to change the outcome it will bring you the same predinited result nullifying your atempts to make it other then what it is.
In my research about this i find only one result.
You will find it too hopfuly in your lifetime if you try hard , but is a pain in the ass to get it.
Have fun ...
_________________
Solomon Grundy
In 1944, this creature rose from the swamp, with tremendous strength and some dormant memories that for example allowed him to speak English, but not knowing what he was, and not remembering Cyrus Gold or his fate. Wandering throughout the swamp, he encountered two escaped criminals, killed them, and took their clothes. When they asked him his name, he simply muttered that he had been born on Monday. Reminded of an old nursery rhyme about a man born on Monday, the thugs named the creature "Solomon Grundy". |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| witch_wyzwurd |
| Posted: Sat Jun 28, 2008 8:00 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Forum Freshman
Joined: 27 Jun 2008
Posts: 13
|
| Solomon, I could pick your response apart in hopes of trying to understand it; the mispelled words, misuse of words, and loss of words which make it a headache to try and figure out and your assumptions about my studies which you're not qualified to make since you haven't seen any of my results. I appreciate your response, but you ignored my simple request to leave this thread open to anyone INTERESTED in helping me. This was an example of a non-scientific debate. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| SolomonGrundy |
| Posted: Sat Jun 28, 2008 10:59 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Forum Junior
Joined: 09 Sep 2007
Posts: 241
Location: USA
|
| witch_wyzwurd wrote: |
| Solomon, I could pick your response apart in hopes of trying to understand it; the mispelled words, misuse of words, and loss of words which make it a headache to try and figure out and your assumptions about my studies which you're not qualified to make since you haven't seen any of my results. I appreciate your response, but you ignored my simple request to leave this thread open to anyone INTERESTED in helping me. This was an example of a non-scientific debate. |
fine then i was willing to help you go get rich boy see if you can
have fun
_________________
Solomon Grundy
In 1944, this creature rose from the swamp, with tremendous strength and some dormant memories that for example allowed him to speak English, but not knowing what he was, and not remembering Cyrus Gold or his fate. Wandering throughout the swamp, he encountered two escaped criminals, killed them, and took their clothes. When they asked him his name, he simply muttered that he had been born on Monday. Reminded of an old nursery rhyme about a man born on Monday, the thugs named the creature "Solomon Grundy". |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| sunshinewarrior |
| Posted: Mon Jun 30, 2008 7:33 am Post subject: |
|
|
Forum Ph.D.
Joined: 26 Sep 2007
Posts: 974
Location: London
|
Dear witch-wizard
Your hypothesis will only be testable if you first take into account the null hypothesis and demonstrate that yours provides answers that are not provided for by the null hypothesis.
The actual sequence, or approach you appear to have taken seems to me to be quite likely to fall into this trap.
Have you had your research design checked thoroughly by a professional statistician? If not, you could be falling for the same sort of illusion of purpose that bewildered people who took the 'Bible Code' seriously.
There are some very competent mathematicians on this forum who could give you advice on goos research design, and what pitfalls to be wary of.
Welcome to the board.
cheer
shanks |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| witch_wyzwurd |
| Posted: Mon Jun 30, 2008 1:09 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Forum Freshman
Joined: 27 Jun 2008
Posts: 13
|
| Quote: |
| Your hypothesis will only be testable if you first take into account the null hypothesis and demonstrate that yours provides answers that are not provided for by the null hypothesis. |
The most I know about the null hypothesis is what I just read up on in Wikipedia and another web page. I am not familiar about it or how to go about using it with the data I have thus far. Any help would be appreciated. The only thing I can showcase is that I've tried it with a few different lottery games and the same basic pattern emerges. One I find to be very intriguing.
| Quote: |
| The actual sequence, or approach you appear to have taken seems to me to be quite likely to fall into this trap. |
I'm not sure what you mean by "trap". And I don't understand how you can say that the path I took seems to fall into a trap, since you don't know my work at all. Not in a condescending way, but do you?
| Quote: |
| Have you had your research design checked thoroughly by a professional statistician? |
No. I don't even know where to find one. Plus, I think my study is too much in its infancy to have someone comment on it that way. But I'm not wary of following my intuition and seeing how it plays out.
| Quote: |
| If not, you could be falling for the same sort of illusion of purpose that bewildered people who took the 'Bible Code' seriously. |
I think one problem people who disclaim the Bible Code have is that they maintain that code found in the Torah can be found in other text; thus, is a sign of being not true. But the flipside of the coin is that: maybe the code exists not just in the Torah but exists in text in which enough letters are present that can be combined to forfeit information.
| Quote: |
| There are some very competent mathematicians on this forum who could give you advice on goos research design, and what pitfalls to be wary of. |
I appreciate that. But would find it disappointing in joining a scientific forum where the members just provide me with "Watch Your Step" messages without interest in at least taking a peek at what I've done.
Thanks for the greeting. Any more information that can help me with my study is appreciated.
Nice to meet ya! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| serpicojr |
| Posted: Mon Jun 30, 2008 1:17 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Forum Professor
Joined: 17 Jul 2007
Posts: 1128
Location: JRZ
|
| I'm curious--how do you explain the fact that the same pattern exists in the various lotteries you're looking at? Do they all use the same random number generator--i.e., do they all involve selecting balls out of a chamber or something? If they do, why does this method of selection lead to a pattern? If not, then why do different random number generators lead to the same pattern? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| witch_wyzwurd |
| Posted: Mon Jun 30, 2008 3:55 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Forum Freshman
Joined: 27 Jun 2008
Posts: 13
|
| Quote: |
| I'm curious--how do you explain the fact that the same pattern exists in the various lotteries you're looking at? |
Ok. This is where a giant leap of faith is going to have to be done by the observer... I'm not surprised many people would debate it, but it's where the information led me to... and I'm not going to deny that. More on this in a second.
| Quote: |
| Do they all use the same random number generator--i.e., do they all involve selecting balls out of a chamber or something? |
The lotto games I'm talking about are the ones in which balls pop up from a chamber. I think that's how most states do their lottery pickings anyways (lottos such as Powerball or Illinois State Lottery, etc.). Not scratch off tickets. More like the larger Pick 5, Pick 6 games. So they use different chambers, but I'm not sure if they use different model. I don't think that has anything to do with it, since some of the games have different limits of the highest number to be drawn, so one would assume that the pattern would be different across the board.
| Quote: |
| If they do, why does this method of selection lead to a pattern? If not, then why do different random number generators lead to the same pattern? |
As aforementioned, I don't believe what method is used has anything to do with the pattern.
The pattern is a preprogrammed pattern. The reason it's there is based on a philosophy I'm purporting. Reality must be seen as an experiment to understand it. Just like physical rules and mathematics have been intertwined into reality (i.e.: gravity, constants, etc.), I see that informational rules and codes are built into it too. I don't believe anything at all is random, but is neatly packaged into categories of information. One of these categories would be the selection of numbers, like lotteries. It's like a test. Imagine you make a reality. Maybe you'd be interested in seeing if a creature you made could overcome beliefs about randomness, so you'd place a code into something that they believe to be random. One in which the creature who picked it apart would be forced to realize was preprogrammed. I guess it's similar to being a computer generated being who is told by fellow computer generated beings that everytthing you do is by choice, but figuring out that something in the game you're a part of is controlled by a random generator programmed in C++ or JAVA language.
That's a really crude example of my philosophy and shouldn't be taken too much to heart, since it's just a quick summary. But regardless of why, the code's there and I'm willing to collabaorate with others to complete it.
I'm not interested in arguing my philosophy here, but am willing to debate the information I discovered.
Thanks for your reply  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| sunshinewarrior |
| Posted: Tue Jul 01, 2008 1:51 am Post subject: |
|
|
Forum Ph.D.
Joined: 26 Sep 2007
Posts: 974
Location: London
|
| witch_wyzwurd wrote: |
| Quote: |
| The actual sequence, or approach you appear to have taken seems to me to be quite likely to fall into this trap. |
I'm not sure what you mean by "trap". And I don't understand how you can say that the path I took seems to fall into a trap, since you don't know my work at all. Not in a condescending way, but do you?
|
I hope not condescending. Here's what you said that made me suspect this:
| Quote: |
| I decided that if I was going to show that there was a nonrandom sequence in lottery draws, the chance that a fundamental sequence would appear in 5 different lottery games from 5 different States, each with different characteristics (amount of numbers chosen per draw, the highest number possible in a particular lottery game, etc.), would be small. I found the opposite to be true. |
I appreciate that I do not know what you mean by 'fundamental sequence', but unless it is a couple of hundred digits long, thanks to the way lotteries work, almost any sequence is bound to turn up, and yes, in a number of lotteries all over the place.
That's why I feared you may be confusing a stochastic likelihood with an actual statistical anomaly.
I don't know this, of course, and apologise if I have misinterpreted what you said/implied, but I do believe it is important for you to eliminate this possibility before starting to think that you've found a real anomaly. Important for your understanding, as also the credibility of your hypothesis if/when you choose to go public, since it is the first question any reviewers will ask. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| evariste.galois |
| Posted: Tue Jul 01, 2008 6:36 am Post subject: Re: Lottos' Design |
|
|
Forum Freshman
Joined: 13 Oct 2007
Posts: 11
|
| Quote: |
| I have completed a few steps in my attempt to prove that at its basic level, reality's flow of information, the mechanics controlling time and events, is preprogrammed. |
If all events are really preprogrammed, you would never be able to prove this as you are a part of this preprogrammed reality.
i guess, if you are searching for any arbirtrary sequence without specifying exactly what you are looking for then you will find something. this is true for random number series as well.
as you say little about your method, i can only guess what you are doing.
anyway, you should reveal your approach. tell exactly what you have done, what data you used and so on. this is the only way to get some reasonable feedback. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| witch_wyzwurd |
| Posted: Tue Jul 01, 2008 12:05 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Forum Freshman
Joined: 27 Jun 2008
Posts: 13
|
| Quote: |
I appreciate that I do not know what you mean by 'fundamental sequence', but unless it is a couple of hundred digits long, thanks to the way lotteries work, almost any sequence is bound to turn up, and yes, in a number of lotteries all over the place.
That's why I feared you may be confusing a stochastic likelihood with an actual statistical anomaly.
I don't know this, of course, and apologise if I have misinterpreted what you said/implied, but I do believe it is important for you to eliminate this possibility before starting to think that you've found a real anomaly. Important for your understanding, as also the credibility of your hypothesis if/when you choose to go public, since it is the first question any reviewers will ask |
I can appreciate where you're coming from on this. The "fundamental sequence" I am speaking of relates to numbers, but not numbers only. I know that's a rather esoteric explanation, but without showing the work, that's the best I can come up with (unless I write a detailed description, but that would be more than I'm willing to type right now). What I've found, I just wouldn't believe is a statistical anamoly. That's why I'm still pushing forward. I'm not really sure how one would be able to decipher if it's a statistical anamoly if it exists in all lottery games. I guess one could say because it exists in many lottery games that it is a statistical anamoly? But at the same time if it does exist in many lottery games, then maybe it means something? I'm not knowledgeable enough to know much about statistics, I just know what I've found.
I'm not really interested in what reviewers say. If it's there and I can predict lottery numbers based on it, then that's enough for me. If it's real, most reviewers, I'm assuming, wouldn't have any knowledge in the way I've gone about finding it anyway to be qualified to comment, since it's an approach that is unique to my own studies.
Like I said, it's not all numbers.
| Quote: |
| If all events are really preprogrammed, you would never be able to prove this as you are a part of this preprogrammed reality. |
Very false. You're assuming I haven't been preprogrammed to reveal the program.
| Quote: |
| i guess, if you are searching for any arbirtrary sequence without specifying exactly what you are looking for then you will find something. this is true for random number series as well. |
Ok. Let's say I wasn't looking for something, but I found something. Does that mean I didn't find something meaningful? I don't believe that. And anyways, as I walked my little lotto path, I had goals, assumptions I sniffed out, that led me to what I've done so far.
I've heard it argued the other way too: If you're looking for something then you're going to lead yourself to finding it even if it isn't there.
You can't have it both ways.
| Quote: |
as you say little about your method, i can only guess what you are doing.
anyway, you should reveal your approach. tell exactly what you have done, what data you used and so on. this is the only way to get some reasonable feedback. |
As aforementioned, I'm not excited about posting my method and having it sit here stagnant. I don't want to post it and have it here for people to just see.
I think a good starting point would be for me to post some work and have someone who has knowledge in statistics really view it and provide comments. Someone, though, who isn't going to deny my findings based on their own beliefs about how reality works, which is my main concern in posting my study. That would be a waste of my time.
If anyone else can apply their intelligence in a way that is useful, then please supply your perspective in how you can help.
P.s.: I should mention that completing my study is not being sought as a way to become filthy rich, although I can't deny I'd think of me first. But in a world where finances are ruined by a faltering economy based on bad political decisions, this can be used as a way to help the common folk. It would be nice to work with people who would find interest in solving this riddle for such purposes.
Thanks for replies.  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| sunshinewarrior |
| Posted: Wed Jul 02, 2008 2:43 am Post subject: |
|
|
Forum Ph.D.
Joined: 26 Sep 2007
Posts: 974
Location: London
|
| witch_wyzwurd wrote: |
| What I've found, I just wouldn't believe is a statistical anamoly. |
Why wouldn't you believe this?
I appreciate that you do not yet wish to speak about the exact 'sequence' you have discovered, but perhaps you could talk about your statistical background and your ability, therefore, to tell the difference between a statistical anomaly and a true blip. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| evariste.galois |
| Posted: Wed Jul 02, 2008 3:16 am Post subject: |
|
|
Forum Freshman
Joined: 13 Oct 2007
Posts: 11
|
| Quote: |
| Very false. You're assuming I haven't been preprogrammed to reveal the program. |
well, and you are assuming the contrary!? that is just the problem, in any case you would not be able to prove something ...
| Quote: |
| Ok. Let's say I wasn't looking for something, but I found something. Does that mean I didn't find something meaningful? I don't believe that. And anyways, as I walked my little lotto path, I had goals, assumptions I sniffed out, that led me to what I've done so far. |
yes, of course you can find something meaningful.
i wanted to say that it would be strange if there was not some sort of sequence. in every random series of outcomes you will find a sequence. if you flip a coin a thousand times then you will find sequences.
a famous example is the stock exchange. assume that a stock price would either increase or decrease and the probability of either event is 50%. this pattern repeats itself each day and in the end you will get a nice looking chart with a trend that does not look like a random series at all. you can try it yourself in excel. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| witch_wyzwurd |
| Posted: Wed Jul 02, 2008 7:57 am Post subject: |
|
|
Forum Freshman
Joined: 27 Jun 2008
Posts: 13
|
| Quote: |
| What I've found, I just wouldn't believe is a statistical anamoly. |
| Quote: |
| Why wouldn't you believe this? |
Just one of those things I guess. I see what I see and say, This just can't be by chance. Like a person seeing a UFO at arms length. Regardless of how many studies show most UFOs to be explainable aircraft, etc., you're not going to convince the person who experienced the close UFO that it wasn't one.
| Quote: |
| I appreciate that you do not yet wish to speak about the exact 'sequence' you have discovered, but perhaps you could talk about your statistical background and your ability, therefore, to tell the difference between a statistical anomaly and a true blip. |
I wrote this a post ago in this thread:
| Quote: |
| I'm not knowledgeable enough to know much about statistics, I just know what I've found. |
I'll add that my highest completion of mathematics is a bit of Calculus but a full class of Trig. Straight A's. I've read some books on Chaos Theory too. But my study doesn't rely on my mathematical background (yet anyways). That's why I'm here. I'm forging my own path. And the only qualification I have is the discovery o the nature of the pattern and that it shows up in several different lottery games. I'd go into other aspects of why I don't think it's an anamoly, but I fear that would probably make people who can't think outside of the box wary of my results (even if they've never seen them).
| Quote: |
| well, and you are assuming the contrary!? that is just the problem, in any case you would not be able to prove something ... |
You're claiming I'm assuming my perspective to be based on an assumption.
| Quote: |
i wanted to say that it would be strange if there was not some sort of sequence. in every random series of outcomes you will find a sequence. if you flip a coin a thousand times then you will find sequences.
a famous example is the stock exchange. assume that a stock price would either increase or decrease and the probability of either event is 50%. this pattern repeats itself each day and in the end you will get a nice looking chart with a trend that does not look like a random series at all. you can try it yourself in excel. |
Yes. I can appreciate this. But look at it this way:
Let's say I give you the numbers 8, 4, 4, 7, 1, 4, 7, 1, 6, 6, 8, 1, 7, 2, 6, 3, 6, 6.
Now, I ask you if this is a random sequence, keeping to the original order. You run some statistical tests (or however you do it), and decide this is a random sequence. No inherent mathematics can be found in it. Maybe, you're right in your perspective, but ultimately you are wrong. Why?
Because after you tell me it's random, I give you a telephone keypad. And show you that the numbers resolve into the phrase: THIS IS NOT RANDOM (where the spaces are 1's). Sometimes you need to know how to translate the information you have before you assume that the only info that exists is what you are looking at.
You might tell me that the system of numbers is not random because I intended them to not be random, but I'm not claiming any different for lottery numbers. I think it's obvious to see that nature's secrets aren't forfeited so easily. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| evariste.galois |
| Posted: Thu Jul 03, 2008 3:04 am Post subject: |
|
|
Forum Freshman
Joined: 13 Oct 2007
Posts: 11
|
| Quote: |
Now, I ask you if this is a random sequence, keeping to the original order. You run some statistical tests (or however you do it), and decide this is a random sequence. No inherent mathematics can be found in it. Maybe, you're right in your perspective, but ultimately you are wrong. Why?
Because after you tell me it's random, I give you a telephone keypad. And show you that the numbers resolve into the phrase: THIS IS NOT RANDOM (where the spaces are 1's). Sometimes you need to know how to translate the information you have before you assume that the only info that exists is what you are looking at. |
well, you can not say much about this series because you do not have sufficiently enough data (but ok it was only an example).
but anyway, if you would translate a whole book into numbers then you could of course say something about this series. for example the number "1" corresponds to the spaces, so "1" would appear more often then any other number, while "9" would be relatively rare as it corresponds to WXYZ and you would find the "3" very often and so on ...
you will see the probability distribution behind the numbers. so you do not have an exact formula that predicts how the series will continue but you could tell a lot of things about the likelihood that a certain number or sequence of several numbers etc. appear.
i would even say that you could figure out something about the structure and you could create a "number dictionary" ...
i get your point, you will not find a mathematical formula but you could see, with an awful lot of work, that there is a structure behind the numbers. btw, if you do not speak english, then you would never be able to see the fundamental principle ... so translated to your lotto problem: do you speak the "language" of the creator who determines how things work ? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
  |
Goto page 1, 2 Next |
Page 1 of 2 |
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
|
|
