Woman wins millions in lottery 4 times!

[Deadly_Nightshade]

Since you've ignored it I'll bump this post from Calax as well (not sure if you've got him on ignore or simply decided not to respond).

 

Dagon, how many of your dads sperm died so that you could reach your mothers egg?

 

How many of his dads sperm died to fertilize him?

 

etc etc

 

The chances of yours, mine, and everyone else EXISTENCE is infinitesimal compared to the number of possibles that died so that your specific paternity could come to fruition. Using your discussion points here, in this thread, none of us should exist, particularly not in our current form. But the thing is we do... well most of us do, some of us are just digital phantoms born from T.O.M.B.S. to harass and annoy the living

 

The sheer odds of the survival of a single member of our species to meet and reproduce is staggering, and let's not go into the odds of creating a universe (and don't turn this into a philosophical discussion about god creating the universe, I'm using this as an example that odds this astronomical aren't insurmountable by chance. God's creation is moot because we're already here).

 

Or for a better illustration:

 

A man releases, in one ejaculation, 200-500 million sperm. They're all gunning for a single, solitary egg which may or may not be there. There are 340,500 births per day in the world, from the meetings of one egg to one sperm (a 1/200000000 chance).

 

And that's just a perfect petri dish conditions, you toss in possible ovary/fallopian problems, lifestyle, miscarriages, abortions and the like and that number WILL skyrocket probably above the "one-in-a-trillion" mark you're so fond of

[Serrano]

Maybe this thread should die now, it's starting to turn from a debate into an argument and it doesn't seem like anyone will convince anyone else.

[Wrath of Dagon]

I didn't understand any of that except that Calax likes to talk about sperm.

 

Maybe this thread should die now, it's starting to turn from a debate into an argument and it doesn't seem like anyone will convince anyone else.

Don't read it if you don't like it.

Edited July 16, 2010 by Wrath of Dagon

[Deadly_Nightshade]

If you're claiming I'm under a misconception, you better state why or shut up.

 

Ohhh, getting testy are we? Well there's many to choose from but the entire "this has low odds thus it is impossible" argument seems to be your biggest one so far.

[alanschu]

I didn't understand any of that except that Calax like to talk about sperm.

 

Calax is stating that the odds of that particular sperm conceiving you is exceptionally small odds. Yet this event has (obviously) happened.

 

I don't think we can conclude Calax likes to talk about sperm from his post.

Edited July 16, 2010 by alanschu

[Calax]

I didn't understand any of that except that Calax like to talk about sperm.

It's really simple, Every pregnancy is a result of a 1/200 million (best odds) of a race/lottery. Actually longer if you include natural relationships rather than just a pitri dish version from a single coupling.

[Wrath of Dagon]

You have to multiply the chances of winning the lotteries though, so the chance of him winning 2 lotteries would be 1000x1000 i.e. 1 million, do you disagree with that?

 

Yes, and that's the point. And actually why I liked you picking the square root of 1 million because it saved me time.

 

Since the odds of winning this lottery is 1/1000. You admit that it is possible for someone to win a lottery at 1/1000.

 

Since winning a lottery is an independent event, the chances of someone winning a lottery that has already won one is also 1/1000. Since 1/1000 is an acceptable probability that you concede is possible, therefore it is possible for someone to have already won the lottery, to win it again. This is because the odds of winning a second lottery, having already won the first lottery, is still 1/1000.

 

 

The odds of any individual winning 2 lotteries is, as you state, 1 in a million (1/1000 * 1/1000). However, since you definitively state that winning something with 1/1000000 odds is impossible, you then paradoxically must be concluding that the odds of someone winning a second lottery having already won 1 lottery MUST be 0. Not 1/1000.

 

 

In your world, since winning two lotteries of these odds is impossible, you must believe that anyone that has already won the lottery has a 0% chance of winning another lottery. 0 != 0.001

I said 1/1000 is a reasonable probabilty, 1 in 1 million is not. Don't confuse a probability not being reasonable with it being 0. I'm not saying the odds of someone winning two lotteries are impossible, I'm saying the odds of a pre-determined person winning two lotteries are impossible. Until you understand the difference, we're not going to get anywhere.

[Balthamael]

You could use the binomial theorem, but you'd have to apply it correctly. The biggest problem with what you're trying to do is you're trying to calculate odds for a specific person winning, instead of the odds of someone in the world winning.

 

Indeed?

 

But if that is indeed what I did (I didn't, but let's pretend that I did) then the probability my calculation returned should have been considerably smaller than the correct number, which you are still insisting is 1 in 100 trillion, correct? Because the odds of specific person winning must be considerably smaller than the odds for anyone winning. Right?

 

So, are there any other criticism of the methodology? (Let's leave your assumption that I calculated incorrectly for later. That's easy to deal with.)

[Humodour]

I said 1/1000 is a reasonable probabilty, 1 in 1 million is not. Don't confuse a probability not being reasonable with it being 0. I'm not saying the odds of someone winning two lotteries are impossible

 

Actually, that's pretty much EXACTLY what you have said multiple times in this thread. E.g.:

 

Your assumption is wrong. Odds of one in 1 million are impossible, Chuck will never win the second lottery. I can believe may be odds of 1 in 1000, but not 1 in 1 million.

[Pidesco]

Less discussing who said what about whom, more using of mathematical misconceptions to prove the existence of God, please.

If you're claiming I'm under a misconception, you better state why or shut up.

 

 

You said that if a possible event is improbable enough, than it becomes impossible. You argue this wonderful bit of logic proves the existence of God.

 

I know. It's hilarious.

[Wrath of Dagon]

I didn't understand any of that except that Calax like to talk about sperm.

It's really simple, Every pregnancy is a result of a 1/200 million (best odds) of a race/lottery. Actually longer if you include natural relationships rather than just a pitri dish version from a single coupling.

No, getting a particular sperm would be those odds. Getting one of them is actually quite good, like 1 in 10, otherwise no one would ever be born.

[Calax]

You have to multiply the chances of winning the lotteries though, so the chance of him winning 2 lotteries would be 1000x1000 i.e. 1 million, do you disagree with that?

 

Yes, and that's the point. And actually why I liked you picking the square root of 1 million because it saved me time.

 

Since the odds of winning this lottery is 1/1000. You admit that it is possible for someone to win a lottery at 1/1000.

 

Since winning a lottery is an independent event, the chances of someone winning a lottery that has already won one is also 1/1000. Since 1/1000 is an acceptable probability that you concede is possible, therefore it is possible for someone to have already won the lottery, to win it again. This is because the odds of winning a second lottery, having already won the first lottery, is still 1/1000.

 

 

The odds of any individual winning 2 lotteries is, as you state, 1 in a million (1/1000 * 1/1000). However, since you definitively state that winning something with 1/1000000 odds is impossible, you then paradoxically must be concluding that the odds of someone winning a second lottery having already won 1 lottery MUST be 0. Not 1/1000.

 

 

In your world, since winning two lotteries of these odds is impossible, you must believe that anyone that has already won the lottery has a 0% chance of winning another lottery. 0 != 0.001

I said 1/1000 is a reasonable probabilty, 1 in 1 million is not. Don't confuse a probability not being reasonable with it being 0. I'm not saying the odds of someone winning two lotteries are impossible, I'm saying the odds of a pre-determined person winning two lotteries are impossible. Until you understand the difference, we're not going to get anywhere.

Wait, WHAT!? Dude, what's the difference if it's pre-determined or just by chance? It's the same situation of 1 person winning two lotteries.

No, getting a particular sperm would be those odds. Getting one of them is actually quite good, like 1 in 10, otherwise no one would ever be born.

 

True, kinda... But if another sperm made it then you wouldn't be you. To may a single specific person who already exists 1 sperm had to defy "Impossible" (In your words) odds to pull it off.

Edited July 16, 2010 by Calax

[alanschu]

I said 1/1000 is a reasonable probabilty, 1 in 1 million is not. Don't confuse a probability not being reasonable with it being 0. I'm not saying the odds of someone winning two lotteries are impossible, I'm saying the odds of a pre-determined person winning two lotteries are impossible. Until you understand the difference, we're not going to get anywhere.

 

 

Elaborate. How am I not picking a unique individual?

Edited July 16, 2010 by alanschu

[Deadly_Nightshade]

I'm not saying the odds of someone winning two lotteries are impossible, I'm saying the odds of a pre-determined person winning two lotteries are impossible.

 

I have a question; how exactly are you saying this person per-determined until they won that second lottery? Your statement seems to be rather useless unless until you clarify what makes someone per-determined (not that it's necessarily useful anyways).

Edited July 16, 2010 by Deadly_Nightshade

[Humodour]

I didn't understand any of that except that Calax like to talk about sperm.

It's really simple, Every pregnancy is a result of a 1/200 million (best odds) of a race/lottery. Actually longer if you include natural relationships rather than just a pitri dish version from a single coupling.

 

And then the odds that epigenetics and life experiences will produce the person that is Wrath of Dagon are even smaller still (think identical twins).

 

Hey Dagon, are identical twins impossible?

[Deadly_Nightshade]

No, getting a particular sperm would be those odds. Getting one of them is actually quite good, like 1 in 10, otherwise no one would ever be born.

 

Woosh! And there you have it, the point just flew over Dagon's head!

 

[Wrath of Dagon]

You could use the binomial theorem, but you'd have to apply it correctly. The biggest problem with what you're trying to do is you're trying to calculate odds for a specific person winning, instead of the odds of someone in the world winning.

 

Indeed?

 

But if that is indeed what I did (I didn't, but let's pretend that I did) then the probability my calculation returned should have been considerably smaller than the correct number, which you are still insisting is 1 in 100 trillion, correct? Because the odds of specific person winning must be considerably smaller than the odds for anyone winning. Right?

 

So, are there any other criticism of the methodology? (Let's leave your assumption that I calculated incorrectly for later. That's easy to deal with.)

Your odds are smaller because you applied the binomial theorem incorrectly, as I've already stated. And again, I can't critisize your methodology until you show me your exact calculation.

[alanschu]

No, getting a particular sperm would be those odds. Getting one of them is actually quite good, like 1 in 10, otherwise no one would ever be born.

 

Just getting one sperm is not what made you. Only a particular sperm did.

[Gorgon]

why do we need to include non lottery players. Isn't it understood that the odds don't include non lottery players, or Martians for that matter.

[Gorgon]

I wish Taks was still around. I would much enjoy watching him lay the smack down in this thread.

[Wrath of Dagon]

I said 1/1000 is a reasonable probabilty, 1 in 1 million is not. Don't confuse a probability not being reasonable with it being 0. I'm not saying the odds of someone winning two lotteries are impossible

 

Actually, that's pretty much EXACTLY what you have said multiple times in this thread. E.g.:

 

Your assumption is wrong. Odds of one in 1 million are impossible, Chuck will never win the second lottery. I can believe may be odds of 1 in 1000, but not 1 in 1 million.

No, what I said was the odds of a specific person winning are impossible, not the odds of someone in the world winning.

Edited July 16, 2010 by Wrath of Dagon

[alanschu]

No, what I said was the odds a specific person winning are impossible, no the odds of someone in the world winning.

 

Chuck is a specific person. Unless you wish to elaborate on what you mean. Because for "someone in the world" to win, a specific person must have achieved this feat (it's a subset of the group).

Edited July 16, 2010 by alanschu

[Humodour]

OK guys, I take issue with the sperm example.

 

All sperm from the same male are genetically identical. Even the unhealthy/mutated sperm (e.g. those with two tales) are sexually viable and contain the same genetic code.

 

Other than that, carry on!

[Deadly_Nightshade]

No, what I said was the odds of a specific person winning are impossible, not the odds of someone in the world winning.

 

Well there's an obvious issue there unless you actually meant "someone in the world who also plays that particular lottery" - you did mean that, right?

 

 

[alanschu]

OK guys, I take issue with the sperm example.

 

All sperm from the same male are genetically identical. Even the unhealthy/mutated sperm (e.g. those with two tales) are sexually viable and contain the same genetic code.

 

Other than that, carry on!

 

 

I actually figured this is probably the case, but Dagon's refutation of the point was still incorrect

 

I do not claim to be a biologist