Woman wins millions in lottery 4 times!

[alanschu]

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.

 

 

Dagon, the incorrect assumption you're making is that the odds of "some person" winning is wholly independent of a "unique person" winning. In order for "some person" to win, a "unique person" must win.

 

 

You have already conceded that it's not impossible for "some person" to win, but it's impossible for a "pre-determined" person to win. This "some person" is an individual. Are you claiming that this individual's chances of winning were somehow lower than a "pre-determined" person's chances of winning?

[Wrath of Dagon]

@Thorton

Impossible for all practical purposes, like saying something will happen once every trillion years is the same as saying it will never happen, unless you're planning on living for a trillion years.

 

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.

 

 

Dagon, the incorrect assumption you're making is that the odds of "some person" winning is wholly independent of a "unique person" winning. In order for "some person" to win, a "unique person" must win.

 

 

You have already conceded that it's not impossible for "some person" to win, but it's impossible for a "pre-determined" person to win. This "some person" is an individual. Are you claiming that this individual's chances of winning were somehow lower than a "pre-determined" person's chances of winning?

Now you're just confusing me. Why not just use terms "some person" and "pre-determined person", why do you have to indroduce "individual" as opposed to "pre-determined" I'm saying a pre-detemined person (you in the last example) will not win, while "some person" has a good chance of winning.

 

Edit: And by "some person" I mean any one of the people playing the lottery, before you ask.

Edited July 16, 2010 by Wrath of Dagon

[Deadly_Nightshade]

...I'm not aware of any.

 

That's odd, I'm fairly sure there's been numerous examples posted.

 

@Thorton

Impossible for all practical purposes, like saying something will happen once every trillion years is the same as saying it will never happen, unless you're planning on living for a trillion years.

 

Sorry, but that's flawed - as I said in an earlier post, just because something has a one-in-a-trillion-year-chance of happening does not mean that this thing cannot happen more than once in that time-frame. Please actually learn the math you're talking about.

[Wrath of Dagon]

...I'm not aware of any.

 

That's odd, I'm fairly sure there's been numerous examples posted.

Numerous bogus examples.

[alanschu]

Now you're just confusing me. Why not just use terms "some person" and "pre-determined person", why do you have to indroduce "individual" as opposed to "pre-determined" I'm saying a pre-detemined person (you in the last example) will not win, while "some person" has a good chance of winning.

 

Because this notion of "pre-determined" is misleading. Unless you're just stating that the odds of predicting a winner are very low. This does not preclude the event itself from actually happening, or refute that very unlikely events can occur.

 

 

The reason why I brought up an "individual" is because the probability of "some person" winning STILL needs an INDIVIDUAL to win. Of the one person that wins that isn't you, is the likelihood of that person winning greater than yours?

[Deadly_Nightshade]

Numerous bogus examples.

 

You know, it's funny that you did was to either ignore them or sit with your fingers in your ears and yell "waahhhh this would make me wrong so it cannot be correct". But whatever, I've got to get going so I'll respond to the rest of your nonsense when I get back.

[Wrath of Dagon]

Fine, pick your favorite example and I'll show to you why it's bogus, if I haven't already.

[Wrath of Dagon]

Now you're just confusing me. Why not just use terms "some person" and "pre-determined person", why do you have to indroduce "individual" as opposed to "pre-determined" I'm saying a pre-detemined person (you in the last example) will not win, while "some person" has a good chance of winning.

 

Because this notion of "pre-determined" is misleading. Unless you're just stating that the odds of predicting a winner are very low. This does not preclude the event itself from actually happening, or refute that very unlikely events can occur.

Probability theory is about predicting what's going to happen, so yes, the chances of predicting a winner are very low. You then have to ask yourself whether with chances being that low, what are your expectations on being able to pick a winner? Do you think you can ever do that in your lifetime? From this point I think we're just going around in circles, since you're trying to disprove an axiom, while I'm trying to give you an intuitive feel for why the axiom is true, since an axiom can not be proven.

The reason why I brought up an "individual" is because the probability of "some person" winning STILL needs an INDIVIDUAL to win. Of the one person that wins that isn't you, is the likelihood of that person winning greater than yours?

But it can be any one of a million individuals, not a specific individual.

Edited July 16, 2010 by Wrath of Dagon

[alanschu]

My most recent one.

[Wrath of Dagon]

You mean an example? Which one, I don't remember any from you.

[alanschu]

Probability theory is about predicting what's going to happen

 

Probability theory is definitely not just about predicting what is going to happen. A quick google of the term "Probability theory" demonstrates this. An awful lot of it is analyzing random phenomenon that has already occurred.

 

From this point I think we're just going around in circles, since you're trying to disprove an axiom, while I'm trying to give you an intuitive feel for why the axiom is true, since an axiom can not be proven.

 

State the axiom. With a source please.

 

 

The reason why I brought up an "individual" is because the probability of "some person" winning STILL needs an INDIVIDUAL to win. Of the one person that wins that isn't you, is the likelihood of that person winning greater than yours?

But it can be any one of a million individuals, not a specific individual.

 

So? This is a red herring. The winning individual is within the subset of all other individuals. This winner had a probability of winning. What was it?

Edited July 16, 2010 by alanschu

[Wrath of Dagon]

Probability theory is about predicting what's going to happen

 

Probability theory is definitely not just about predicting what is going to happen. A quick google of the term "Probability theory" demonstrates this. An awful lot of it is analyzing random phenomenon that has already occurred.

If something has already occurred, it has probability of one, but whatever, I don't want to argue about definitions.

 

From this point I think we're just going around in circles, since you're trying to disprove an axiom, while I'm trying to give you an intuitive feel for why the axiom is true, since an axiom can not be proven.

 

State the axiom. With a source please.

An extremely low probabilty of an event makes the event functionally impossible, the source is myself.

 

 

The reason why I brought up an "individual" is because the probability of "some person" winning STILL needs an INDIVIDUAL to win. Of the one person that wins that isn't you, is the likelihood of that person winning greater than yours?

But it can be any one of a million individuals, not a specific individual.

 

So? This is a red herring. The winning individual is within the subset of all other individuals. This winner had a probability of winning. What was it?

It's not a red herring, it's the central point which you may or may not understand. Before he won, it was whatever the odds of the lottery are. After he won, it became one. The event that happened was not that a pre-determined individual won, it's that one of the entire pool of people playing won. And the odds of that are quite reasonable. You can't escape that point no matter how often you repeat yourself. Edited July 16, 2010 by Wrath of Dagon

[Pidesco]

An extremely low probabilty of an event makes the event functionally impossible, the source is myself.

 

 

Extremely unlikely events happen all the freaking time.

[LadyCrimson]

Edit: What I'm trying to say is that for all practical purposes they can't happen. To repeat once again, if something can only happen once in a trillion years, you're will not ever see it happen. If you don't believe that, there's nothing more I can say to you.

I leave the actual maths proofs to people better equipped than I, which would be 98% of ppl, but I'm curious about the bolded statement.

 

Taking that statement alone, and from my idiot layperson's perspective, I'm wondering is there anything in all this math theory that claims/proves that I/we could not be the ones to see that 1 in a trillion years chance thing happen, and it's all the generations after us that won't see it? Because if not, it does sound to my uneducated ears as if you're still saying these super high odds = absolute 0.

[Calax]

An extremely low probabilty of an event makes the event functionally impossible, the source is myself.

And yet somebody still wins, thus it is possible, unless you're saying impossible =/= "It will never ever occur"

[Gorgon]

Dagon probably attended an advanced class at some point, but judging by his skill in explaining it he probably can't remember that much.

[alanschu]

If something has already occurred, it has probability of one, but whatever, I don't want to argue about definitions.

 

I am literally baffled that you just said this.

 

You're not one to argue for defniitions? Well I can't say I'm too surprised, because you're making up definitions as you go. To make matters worse, you've just created a catch all for yourself. If you wish to declare "since the event already happened, the probably of it occurring is 1."

 

In other words, what you just said is that the probability of the woman in the OP winning 4 consecutive lotteries is 1. Because she has done it. This is most definitely an asinine statement.

 

 

Assuming you're not actually trolling, there is zero chance you attended any course on probability and are able to come to this conclusion. The only possible way you would be at the top of your class in it, is if you were the only person in the class.

 

 

Before he won, it was whatever the odds of the lottery are. After he won, it became one. The event that happened was not that a pre-determined individual won, it's that one of the entire pool of people playing won. And the odds of that are quite reasonable. You can't escape that point no matter how often you repeat yourself.

 

You have NO clue AT ALL what you are talking about. Seriously. This is a stupid comment. It's 100% wrong, has no basis in reality. The fact that something did happen does NOT mean that the probability of it occurring was 1. There is zero scientific validity in your conclusion.

 

 

The world of probability theory is VERY MUCH determined by analyzing random distributions that have already occurred. At no point will you EVER see any respected statistician claim that the probability of a prior, non-deterministic, event is 1.

 

I just flipped a coin ten times, and got: H, T, H, H, T, H, T, H, H, H. If you believe that the probability of me obtaining this sequence of coin flips is 1 (and not 1 in 1024), then you do not understand probability theory in the slightest.

 

 

What I suspect, however, is that you may believe that previously occurring events are deterministic. Since you think they have a probability of one, and the "evidence" of it is the fact that said event occurred, then something (or someone) determined it to be this way. I suspect this is likely highly influenced by your religious beliefs. But it doesn't hold up one iota to scientific analysis, and certainly not probability theory. It would be better if you simply stated that you believe this is an act of God, just because. At least you wouldn't end up painting yourself into a corner, making pitiful attempts to backpedal, misdirections that you're attempting to claim something else

 

 

Seriously Dagon, lets recap your posts:

 

• First you state that this woman winning the lottery is either due to a scam or supernatural phenomenon. You also take a pot shot at atheism in the process (while demonstrating that you don't know what atheism stands for)
  
• Then you claim that if something has a low enough probability, we'll never witness it
  
• You then tell someone to use inductive reasoning (which is a poor suggestion) to "prove" that something with really small odds won't happen
  
• You then start obfuscating the issue with words like "pre-determined" as if the probability of any unique set drawn from cards is somehow different (hint: it's not. No matter how much you want to think it is)
  
• A few posts later you actually acknowledge that my assertion is true
  
• After acknowledging that my assertion is correct, you backpedal into claiming that you can't make a correct prediction about it (even though you can. And there's even a small chance you'll be right). In this same post you seem to think that in order for the probability of a unique sequence of cards to "matter" I have to make a prediction on them (this is wrong. Whatever unique sequence of cards I obtain, there was a unique, and exceptionally small, probability for me to obtain that sequence. This probability happens to be the same for any unique sequence of cards drawn, assuming the deck is fair)
  
• You then deny the logical fallacy you stated (and you most certainly did) in your very first point by (incorrectly) interpreting Nightshade's accusation as applying to your claim that something that has a low probability of happening cannot happen.
  
• You then claim to have been first in a probability class in your college (while at the same time executing an unsolicited ad hominem attack on a poster, which you later claim in this thread to never do. Sorry Dagon, but someone stating that you have a poor understanding of Math is not an ad hominem attack. You're failure to actually understand math and probabilities makes that poster's statement correct)
  
• You then go on to say (a lot) that the odds state it is impossible for her to win.
  
• You then insult everyone's understanding of Math
  
• Shortly after you simply claim that the school you attended was the one that "invented" nanotechnology (wouldn't it be easier to simply state the name of the school, rather than obscure and incorrect allusions that otherwise indicate that your school is probably fictional?)
  
• You then demonstrate that you don't understand independent events, stating that double winners winning twice again is 100 trillion (which is a paradoxical statement your current belief that since it the first two wins already occurred and hence have a probability of 1)
  
• You then start to confuse the issue by somehow equating "any unique person winning the lottery" as "some person winning the lottery"
  
• Editor's Note... I'm only on page 7... I'm going to have to skip some stuff I think
  
• Oh! It seems I completely missed you ****ting all over probability theory on page 7 when you said: "The chance of someone winning once we know is 1." which is just wrooooooooooong. The probability of the outcome of an event is unchanged by whether or not the event actually occurred. All you do here is state the FACT that someone one. Not the PROBABILITY of that person winning.
  

 

No sense going on any more, but really, you have demonstrated that you do not understand probability theory in the slightest. Unless maybe it's some sort of probability theory that isn't actually based on science, but maybe creationism or something.

 

 

I remember another professor of mine, Russell Greiner (Here is his CV btw), stressing that all sorts of people can fudge the numbers and do funny Math, but if the Math isn't correct it'll break down eventually. Your math is wrong Dagon. I'm going to give Probability professors everywhere the benefit of the doubt, and assume they didn't teach you the nonsense you are spitting out now.

 

 

Dagon probably attended an advanced class at some point, but judging by his skill in explaining it he probably can't remember that much.

 

It's seeming more and more likely that Dagon attempted to Google some concepts and ended up biting off more than he could chew. The only way he attended an advanced class, while making elementary mistakes that are taught in the first courses of probability, is if he never bothered to attend the prerequisite classes.

Edited July 17, 2010 by alanschu

[Thorton_AP]

Which really isn't surprising, I remember in my signals and systems class almost no one could understand Fourier transforms, even though everyone was at least in the top 5% of students worldwide.

 

These types of metrics between University's actually exist?

 

Which school did you go to?

Edited July 17, 2010 by Thorton_AP

[Oblarg]

I just flipped a coin ten times, and got: H, T, H, H, T, H, T, H, H, H. If you believe that the probability of me obtaining this sequence of coin flips is 1 (and not 1 in 1024), then you do not understand probability theory in the slightest.

 

Going to chime in again, because the math is getting shoddy again.

 

Actually, to be fair, that depends on your definition of probability. This is like asking "what is the probability that your shirt is blue?" It's a perfectly defensible view that in that case there is no probability. Your shirt is either blue or it is not blue. The only reasonable way to pose that question is "if I were to take an infinite number of samples of the shirt color of people effectively identical to you, what percentage would have blue shirts?" Or, for a more relevant example, "If I were to take a sample of an infinite number of groups of four lotteries, in what percentage would the four lotteries be won by the same person?" (Now, if you're paying attention, it should be obvious using that example that the probability of the same person winning four lotteries is the same as the probability of any unique sequence of four people winning the respective lotteries, rendering half of this entire ****ing discussion useless.)

 

You're focusing way too much on that little tidbit of wording, which is a completely irrelevant argument of definitions which changes absolutely nothing about the actual problem, instead of his broader mistakes of "highly improbable events cannot happen" or "I believe an independent event can happen once but not four times."

Edited July 17, 2010 by Oblarg

[alanschu]

I don't see any problem with my math being shoddy. Feel free on elaborating.

 

What I see is him obfuscating the issue and utilizing probability to determine some other issue (i.e. did past reality actually happen). Effectively he is equating probability with prediction. Which is incorrect.

Edited July 17, 2010 by alanschu

[Oblarg]

I don't see any problem with my math being shoddy. Feel free on elaborating.

 

What I see is him obfuscating the issue and utilizing probability to determine a fact. Effectively he is equating probability with prediction. Which is incorrect.

 

You're letting the topic be derailed into a completely worthless and irrelevant debate of definitions (which is where the math started getting shoddy) with no clear "correct" answer.

Edited July 17, 2010 by Oblarg

[alanschu]

Fair enough.

 

 

 

EDIT: An excellent point, btw, that the probably of the 4 consecutive winners winning is another example. But he's already distorted that a lot. After all, the odds of "some person" winning he accepts as being possible. Just not anyone specifically.

 

 

I just showed this thread to a friend of mine (fellow CompSci grad) and we're having some good time out of it.

Edited July 17, 2010 by alanschu

[Wrath of Dagon]

Edit: What I'm trying to say is that for all practical purposes they can't happen. To repeat once again, if something can only happen once in a trillion years, you're will not ever see it happen. If you don't believe that, there's nothing more I can say to you.

I leave the actual maths proofs to people better equipped than I, which would be 98% of ppl, but I'm curious about the bolded statement.

 

Taking that statement alone, and from my idiot layperson's perspective, I'm wondering is there anything in all this math theory that claims/proves that I/we could not be the ones to see that 1 in a trillion years chance thing happen, and it's all the generations after us that won't see it? Because if not, it does sound to my uneducated ears as if you're still saying these super high odds = absolute 0.

No, math doesn't talk about expectations, only probabilities. Well, if all the generations after us last for a trillion years, may be one of them will see it. I think that's longer than the universe is expected to exist though.

 

Which really isn't surprising, I remember in my signals and systems class almost no one could understand Fourier transforms, even though everyone was at least in the top 5% of students worldwide.

 

These types of metrics between University's actually exist?

 

Which school did you go to?

Rice University

Edited July 17, 2010 by Wrath of Dagon

[Deadly_Nightshade]

No, it's a fact, and if you don't even know that you're too ignorant to continue any discussion with. Go back and talk to your professor, may be he can explain it to you, I'm tired of trying to give you a remedial education.

 

An extremely low probabilty of an event makes the event functionally impossible, the source is myself.

 

R00fles!

[alanschu]

In other words, what you just said is that the probability of the woman in the OP winning 4 consecutive lotteries is 1. Because she has done it. This is most definitely an asinine statement.

No, it's a fact, and if you don't even know that you're too ignorant to continue any discussion with. Go back and talk to your professor, may be he can explain it to you, I'm tired of trying to give you a remedial education.

 

You're the only one here discussing the probability of something being a fact Dagon. I'd rather contact your professor anyways! Besides, you would have made this point earlier had you not been backed into a corner.

 

I agree that you should stop discussing it though. I have cited my sources (i.e. me) and have come to the conclusion that the probability that you don't know what you're talking about in this thread is 1. Of course, you may be correct one time in like a trillion years, but obviously this means we must live to be a trillion in order to witness this event.

 

 

In other news, I pack bombs with me when I go onto airplanes. This is because the statistical likelihood of TWO people carrying bombs onto the planes is much less (actually impossible I have learned). As a result, I am safer.

Edited July 17, 2010 by alanschu