Woman wins millions in lottery 4 times!

[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, 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?

You are picking a unique individual, Chuck. What you have to be talking about is some person in the world who plays the lottery.

[Gfted1]

But if another sperm made it then you wouldn't be you.

 

 

Youve said this a few times now, and not to get too OT, but arent all sperm the same? Basically they are identical vessels used to carry and deposit the same DNA that all the sperm are carrying. There isnt multiple different versions of sperm, afaik, so he would always be "him", no?

[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?

You are picking a unique individual, Chuck. What you have to be talking about is some person in the world who plays the lottery.

 

 

Chuck does play the lottery. I figured that that was some obvious given he won the lottery. Your statement is nebulous to me. What is the point of it?

Edited July 16, 2010 by alanschu

[Deadly_Nightshade]

But if another sperm made it then you wouldn't be you.

 

Youve said this a few times now, and not to get too OT, but arent all sperm the same? Basically they are identical vessels used to carry and deposit the same DNA that all the sperm are carrying. There isnt multiple different versions of sperm, afaik, so he would always be "him", no?

 

 

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.

 

I believe you're incorrect, some sperm's genetic information has slight mutations that might not appear in other sperm - fairly sure that this is the case and not the "all sperm are created equal and with identical genetics" version you're suggesting. But this is drifting off topic (I'd be glad to discuss it with you though if you want to make another thread).

Edited July 16, 2010 by Deadly_Nightshade

[Pidesco]

A lottery from Western Europe: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EuroMillions

 

The odds of winning the biggest prize, are 1 in 76 million. People have, on occasion, won it.

[Wrath of Dagon]

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?

Try not to go off the subject, identical twins happen when a fertalized egg splits, what's so unlikely about that?

 

Chuck does play the lottery. I figured that that was some obvious given he won the lottery. Your statement is nebulous to me. What is the point of it?

OK, forget it. Either restate what you're trying to prove, or which exact stament of mine you're disputing and why. I'm not sure what we're arguing about right now. For my part I'll just restate that the odds of some person in the world winning a lottery are much better than the odds of a specific preselected person winning the lottery.

Edited July 16, 2010 by Wrath of Dagon

[Humodour]

But if another sperm made it then you wouldn't be you.

 

 

Youve said this a few times now, and not to get too OT, but arent all sperm the same? Basically they are identical vessels used to carry and deposit the same DNA that all the sperm are carrying. There isnt multiple different versions of sperm, afaik, so he would always be "him", no?

 

 

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.

 

I believe you're incorrect, some sperm's genetic information has slight mutations that might not appear in other sperm - fairly sure that this is the case and not the "all sperm are created equal and with identical genetics" version you're suggesting. But this is drifting off topic (I'd be glad to discuss it with you though if you want to make another thread).

 

I was being general in response to the example people were using which implied every sperm is different. What you said can happen (typically due to radiation or oxidation) but normal abnormalities are usually not a result of it.

[Deadly_Nightshade]

For my part I'll just restate that the odds of some person in the world winning a lottery are much better than the odds of a specific preselected person winning the lottery.

 

And, again, why is this? I don't think you ever said that...

 

[Amentep]

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

 

I always thought Anselm's ontological argument was fun.

 

I stumbled across this in one of my old statistics books, I thought it was neat:

 

"Informally speaking, two events A and B are independent if the occurrence or nonoccurrence of either one does not affect the probability of the occurrence of the other..." - John E. Freund's Mathematical Statistics, Irwin Miller and Marylees Miller, Prentice Hall 1999.

Edited July 16, 2010 by Amentep

[Wrath of Dagon]

@Nightshade

Because if a billion people are playing the lottery the chance of one of them winning is much greater than if a single individual is playing.

Edited July 16, 2010 by Wrath of Dagon

[Humodour]

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?

Try not to go off the subject, identical twins happen when a fertalized egg splits, what's so unlikely about that?

 

Fine, two twins a bit common for you (lol)? What about octuplets. A 1 in 25 quadrillion chance (as per Hellin's Law). Are they impossible?

[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.

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.

No two sperm have the exact same DNA. Transcription errors, minor dna mutations, and a bit of a blending between chromosomes (IIRC) all factor into the creation of a little tadpole. If they were almost exactly alike then everyone and their sibilings would be almost clones. Also factoring in X vs Y chromosomes. I had a bit of Anthro last semester but I'm starting to loose it again . If sperm was that close, eggs would be in a similar boat and we wouldn't have the genetic variation we needed in order to survive.

 

And Dagon, yes, the odds of SOMEBODY winning it are better than one specific person, as the odds of SOMEBODY in the world winning it are 1 (unless the operators are schiesters). That's like saying "The odds of the Earth getting hit by a meteor are larger than the odds of the earth getting hit by a meteor in 10 minutes at 41n 22' 22" and 21w 13' 07".

[Wrath of Dagon]

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?

Try not to go off the subject, identical twins happen when a fertalized egg splits, what's so unlikely about that?

 

Fine, two twins a bit common for you (lol)? What about octuplets. A 1 in 25 quadrillion chance (as per Hellin's Law). Are they impossible?

Has anyone proved it to be true? That could hold for a woman with no unusual medical conditions, but there could be women who are more susceptible. It's known that fertility drugs greatly increase the chances (like octomom), some women may have natural conditions which do the same. The law could still hold for smaller litters, but a few women in the world with unusual conditions would greatly skew the chances at very low probabilities.

[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.

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.

No two sperm have the exact same DNA. Transcription errors, minor dna mutations, and a bit of a blending between chromosomes (IIRC) all factor into the creation of a little tadpole. If they were almost exactly alike then everyone and their sibilings would be almost clones. Also factoring in X vs Y chromosomes. I had a bit of Anthro last semester but I'm starting to loose it again . If sperm was that close, eggs would be in a similar boat and we wouldn't have the genetic variation we needed in order to survive.

 

Actually, most sperm are identical. The reason clones by birth are so very very very rare (not excluding order two monozygotic twins, which are just uncommon) is because of chromosomal recombination, which not only takes only 50% of the genetic data from the sperm and 50% from the egg, but can also happen at any location on the chromosomes, and this all happens PER CHROMOSOME, of which there are 23.

 

Put simply: given a sperm and an egg, you can make an amazingly large number of genetically different (but genetically related) organisms.

 

[Humodour]

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?

Try not to go off the subject, identical twins happen when a fertalized egg splits, what's so unlikely about that?

 

Fine, two twins a bit common for you (lol)? What about octuplets. A 1 in 25 quadrillion chance (as per Hellin's Law). Are they impossible?

Has anyone proved it to be true? That could hold for a woman with no unusual medical conditions, but there could be women who are more susceptible. It's known that fertility drugs greatly increase the chances (like octomom), some women may have natural conditions which do the same. The law could still hold for smaller litters, but a few women in the world with unusual conditions would greatly skew the chances at very low probabilities.

 

Fair point. Let's focus on the normal woman only who birth octuplets then. Their chance is still 1 in 25 quadrillion.

[alanschu]

Since this wasn't addressed:

 

How does "some person" win a lottery subsequent times, without "a unique person" winning that lottery as well?

[Wrath of Dagon]

Fair point. Let's focus on the normal woman only who birth octuplets then. Their chance is still 1 in 25 quadrillion.

Actually octomom may have been a bad example, since I think they actually implanted 8 embryos. As far as normal women without any conditions, and if the law really holds for octuplets (like I said, I don't think it's been proven), than I'd never expect to see a normal woman have octuplets.

Edited July 16, 2010 by Wrath of Dagon

[Wrath of Dagon]

Since this wasn't addressed:

 

How does "some person" win a lottery subsequent times, without "a unique person" winning that lottery as well?

By unique I mean pre-selected before he's won anything.

[Deadly_Nightshade]

...I'd never expect to see a normal woman have octuplets.

 

You'd not expect to see it but that doesn't mean that it could not happen.

[Deadly_Nightshade]

Since this wasn't addressed:

 

How does "some person" win a lottery subsequent times, without "a unique person" winning that lottery as well?

By unique I mean pre-selected before he's won anything.

 

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).

[alanschu]

Since this wasn't addressed:

 

How does "some person" win a lottery subsequent times, without "a unique person" winning that lottery as well?

By unique I mean pre-selected before he's won anything.

 

 

How does that change the probability of a unique person winning at that lottery?

 

 

Basically what I'm getting here is what you're actually saying is not that it's impossible for super rare events to happen, but rather, that you feel it's impossible to predict them.

Edited July 16, 2010 by alanschu

[Wrath of Dagon]

Think of it this way, you have a lot less chance of winning a lottery than that someone somewhere is going to win the lottery. That's all I'm saying.

[alanschu]

Think of it this way, you have a lot less chance of winning a lottery than that someone somewhere is going to win the lottery. That's all I'm saying.

 

 

Noooooooooooooooo, it is NOT AT ALL what you were saying. This is VERY DIFFERENT than what you were saying. Had you said this, I am very skeptical that anyone here would have disagreed with you. I would have certainly pointed out their errors.

 

If P(A) is exceptionally small, then obviously 1 - P(A) (i.e. the probability of an event not happening in a Binomial situation) is going to be very high.

 

 

This does not refute that events with exceptionally rare occurrences are not impossible to occur.

[Wrath of Dagon]

That's all I was saying in that particular discussion, not in the entire thread.

 

They're not impossible (since there's a finite probability) but for all practical purposes they will never occur. This should be axiomatic and obvious, but if it's not, then I guess it's a matter of your belief system. The only way to disprove it is to show an extremely unlikely event that actually occurred, and except for the woman winning 4 times, I'm not aware of any.

[Thorton_AP]

That's all I was saying in that particular discussion

 

Wasn't the discussion always regarding your claim that if the probability of something is low enough, it is impossible for it to happen?