Woman wins millions in lottery 4 times!

[Deadly_Nightshade]

No, what's safe to say that no one in this thread except me seems to understand how probabilty works.

 

Full of yourself much?

 

...even though everyone was at least in the top 5% of students worldwide.

 

Sure they were, Dagon. Sure the were.

[Pidesco]

I'm thinking of stickying this thread.

 

So much win!

[Humodour]

@krezack No, what's safe to say that no one in this thread except me seems to understand how probabilty works. Which really isn't surprising, I remember in my signals and systems class almost no one could understand Fourier trasnforms, even though everyone was at least in the top 5% of students worldwide.

 

I think it's safe to say you don't have any clue whatsoever what an independent event is. Or what an event is. Or what probability is.

 

I think it's safe to say that you didn't even do a subject in Signals and Systems and just googled "electrical engineering" and saw it contained this suitably eldritch topic in mathematics called 'Fourier transforms'. Because there's no way you'd be capable of actually understanding Fourier analysis, Wrath. That's not an insult, that's fact, and this thread is ample proof.

[Wrath of Dagon]

Well, I am capable of understanding Fourier analysis. Have you ever considered the possibilty that it's you who's not understanding anything, possibly due to your drug habit, and thus whatever I say seems incomprehensible to you, just like a particle physicist trying to explain something to a 5th grader, in other words someone like you, would be completely incomprehensible?

Edited July 16, 2010 by Wrath of Dagon

[Pidesco]

Don't ruin the thread by throwing personal insults around, please.

[Deadly_Nightshade]

An ad hominem attack? Really Dagon? Really?

 

EDIT:

And Pidesco, I agree this thread is epic.

Edited July 16, 2010 by Deadly_Nightshade

[Gorgon]

Of course you know this means war. Krezak vs Dagon in the playground after classes.

[Humodour]

Well, I am capable of understanding Fourier analysis. Have you ever considered the possibilty that it's you who's not understanding anything, possibly due to your drug habit, and thus whatever I say seems incomprehensible to you, just like a particle physist trying to explain something to a 5th grader, in other words someone like you, would be completely incomprehensible?

 

You're definitely right - the reason you can't grasp year 7 algebra is because I thoroughly enjoy punching a few cones with mates on occasion.

 

Also I know a half-dozen 5th graders who understand particle physics, mate.

[Wrath of Dagon]

Sure you do.

[Wrath of Dagon]

An ad hominem attack? Really Dagon? Really?

 

EDIT:

And Pidesco, I agree this thread is epic.

You started ad hominem attacks, remember? And I never do it unless I'm answering one.

[Calax]

Well, I am capable of understanding Fourier analysis. Have you ever considered the possibilty that it's you who's not understanding anything, possibly due to your drug habit, and thus whatever I say seems incomprehensible to you, just like a particle physist trying to explain something to a 5th grader, in other words someone like you, would be completely incomprehensible?

I don't know, your inability to grasp even the simplest of probability makes it sound more like you're the one in fifth grade. When something has an independent probability of happening it doesn't change in relation to another action. Is that REALLY that hard to grasp?

[Deadly_Nightshade]

Sure you do.

 

Hey, just because he doesn't understand Dagon-Maths

[Deadly_Nightshade]

You started ad hominem attacks, remember?

 

And when, exactly, did I do that?

Edited July 16, 2010 by Deadly_Nightshade

[Humodour]

Sure you do.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alia_Sabur

 

Anyway, back to probability! Pidesco's right: we wouldn't want to knock the thread off topic.

Edited July 16, 2010 by Krezack

[alanschu]

@ alanschu The problem is you're assuming he already won the first lottery.

 

 

You're right, I am. He has a probably of doing so at 1/1000. This is an event that you yourself agree is possible.

 

Since it's possible for him to achieve this event, I'm not assuming that anything impossible has happened.

 

 

 

My reason for doing so is that you stated definitively that it is impossible. I'm demonstrating that it is, in fact, possible. The only way winning subsequent lotteries would be impossible would be if the chances of you winning a lottery was dependent on whether or not you won a previous lottery. It is not.

[Balthamael]

 

You insist bringing this number up despite it having been shown to be nothing better than a guess. You said you were trying to estimate the order of magnitude, but nothing in your methodology fills me with confidence that you have anywhere close to the correct probability, or even order of magnitude. Earlier in this thread I demonstrated the correct method for solving this kind of problem, which you declared to be "completely wrong for reasons you are too lazy to explain". I must know insist that you explain what exactly was wrong in my math, other than that it disagreed with your made-up number.

 

To make a decent estimate for the probability of this event, you need to have estimates for a single ticket winning, and for the amount of tickets the lady has purchased over her life.

The only doubt I had about my derivation is whether you have to divide by the amount she spent once or several times. After thinking about is some more, I'm now confident it's only once, since she'd have to spend that money to even be in the pool which could likely win the lottery the second time. As far as your calculation, you'd have to show me the exact calculation you used since I can't tell what you're doing. You seem to have forgotten to include the factorial in the binomial theorem.

 

 

 

Honestly, I have no idea what it is that you are trying to do, and why you are doing it, but it is of no consequence. Since you are at least pretending to know about binomial probability theorem, it makes things easier. Maybe. Would you agree that binomial theorem is the correct way to determine the probability of hitting the jackpot a certain number of times over a certain number of trials? As opposed to whatever you did that led you to that 1 in a 100 trillion figure?

[Wrath of Dagon]

Sure you do.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alia_Sabur

 

Anyway, back to probability! Pidesco's right: we wouldn't want to knock the thread off topic.

It's not that you know her, it's that you know of her.

 

Honestly, I have no idea what it is that you are trying to do, and why you are doing it, but it is of no consequence. Since you are at least pretending to know about binomial probability theorem, it makes things easier. Maybe. Would you agree that binomial theorem is the correct way to determine the probability of hitting the jackpot a certain number of times over a certain number of trials? As opposed to whatever you did that led you to that 1 in a 100 trillion figure?

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.

 

You started ad hominem attacks, remember?

 

And when, exactly, did I do that?

When you called my posts asinine.

 

@ alanschu The problem is you're assuming he already won the first lottery.

 

You're right, I am. He has a probably of doing so at 1/1000. This is an event that you yourself agree is possible.

 

Since it's possible for him to achieve this event, I'm not assuming that anything impossible has happened.

 

My reason for doing so is that you stated definitively that it is impossible. I'm demonstrating that it is, in fact, possible. The only way winning subsequent lotteries would be impossible would be if the chances of you winning a lottery was dependent on whether or not you won a previous lottery. It is not.

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?

Edited July 16, 2010 by Wrath of Dagon

[Deadly_Nightshade]

It's not that you know her, it's that you know of her.

 

So he's like you, you don't know math but still know of it.

[Calax]

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.

It's still possible, contrary to your ravings.

[Deadly_Nightshade]

When you called my posts asinine.

 

Sorry, but that's not an ad hominem attack - mainly because, obviously, it was not directed against you but at your statements. You might want to look up the meaning of that along with the maths.

 

[Wrath of Dagon]

It is directed at me since I made the statements.

[Pidesco]

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

[Deadly_Nightshade]

It is directed at me since I made the statements.

 

Nope. It doesn't work that way at all. When I called your beliefs/statements asinine I said nothing about you other than that your beliefs/statements were asinine. The comment was directed at those and not yourself and thus it is not an example of an ad hominem attack. Please go directly to jail, do not pass go, and do not collect $200 (in other words, you failed once again).

[Wrath of Dagon]

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.

[alanschu]

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