imatfaal

Not magical at all. Simply explained.

1. The initial three digits equal 6

2. Each subsequent set of digits is 9 more

3. In decimal notation the process of adding 9 can be seen as adding 1 to the tens column and subtracting 1 from units column

4. Adding 1 and subtracting 1 will always leave the digit sum as the same as the previous answer - 6

If you started with 2,3,4 every triple would eventually add to 9, and if you started with 3,4,5 every triple would add to 3.

Neither new, nor interesting

 

No. That's not skepticism AT ALL. Please don't redefine words to fit your idea, that's intellectually inefficient. Terminology is more important than you think.

Hmm ... In Philosophical terms, I am not so sure that you cannot be a closed or open minded sceptic.

Philosophical scepticism is not incredulity in the absence of proof - it is the belief that proof cannot be forthcoming in said particular scenario. I think one could be agreeable to persuasion regarding the possibility of empirical evidence (an open-minded sceptic) or be firm in one's conviction that proof cannot be forthcoming - perhaps misguidedly - and unable to be persuaded regarding any potential proof (a closed minded sceptic). To give an example - I do not believe in the possibility of scientific proof of the supernatural; because as soon as there is empirical evidence the phenomenon in question is no longer supernatural by definition (the supernatural part of it will probably have been shifted to one place more remote on a spectrum of abstraction).

Scientific Rationalism / Scepticism is not the same thing really and is much more a term referring to the twin aspects of refusing to believe without evidence and the ability to be persuaded once evidence is presented.

Right. Heinz, which is common here is probably the sweetest, relatively, but still has a fairly distinct tang. That's American isn't It? Maybe your version is different in sweetness. Most of the others are more tart. I like the tart, cheek-pulling stuff on my chips. I even sprinkle vinegar with it.

Big corps like Heinz make different versions for different localities - so it could well be sweeter

US Version per 100g

Energy 560kJ

Total Fat 0g 0%

Sat. Fat 0g 0%

Trans Fat 0g

Cholesterol 0mg 0%

Sodium 1067mg 44%

Total Carbs. 33.3g 11%

Dietary Fiber 0g 0%

Sugars 26.7g

Protein 0g

Calcium 0mg

UK Version

Typical Values

Per 100g Per serving (15g)

Energy 435kJ 65kJ

102kcal 15kcal

Fat 0.1g Trace

-of which saturates Trace Trace

Carbohydrate 23.2g 3.5g

-of which sugars 22.8g 3.4g

Protein 1.2g 0.2g

Salt 1.8g 0.3g

So not exactly the same - and extra 4.5g of sugars per 100g. And a tonne of extra carbs and energy (does hi-fructose corn syrup come under sugars?)

Do we not already have an alternative and dare I say better classification.

 

Subjective and Objective?

 

Properties including gravity would fall into the subjective category.

The great steop forward due to Einstein was to show that many so called properties depend upin the observer and no one observer's view is preferable.

 

Maths would fall into the objective category, but Russell, Godel and others showed that there are limits to this.

Maths is certainly not 'absolute', partly as imatfaal showed and partly due to Godels theorems.

Agree - although I might be more tempted to pass on the idea of real objectivity and instead use the (admittedly clunk and horrid) idea of inter-subjective agreement; we don't really know if we are being objective - just that whoever looks at the phenomenon tends to find the same conclusions

We had a colloquium on the physics of Interstellar a few months back. As I recall, the radiation from the SMBH would fry you in very short order.

I presume that is the radiation from the accretion disc rather than the hawking radiation. The hawking radiation from a super-massive blackhole is so low to be unmeasurable (many orders of magnitude cooler than intersteller void)

Thank you. Yes, I understand what you're saying regarding the tidal effects being mild due to the distance from the singularity. What I am curious about is if there are other forces present at the Schwarzschild radius which would make it difficult for a human to survive (well, beyond the vacuum of space) in a non-rotating black hole.

 

I realize that this is purely theoretical, but what I'm curious is if it would be possible (given the right mass of a black hole and the right circumstances) for a human being to come within a reasonable distance of (but not cross into) the event horizon and survive. I also assume that time dilation at such a proximity would very much be a factor.

Time dilation is never a factor within your own frame - clocks within your own frame of reference run normally. But an outside observer would see you acting slower and slower - and would never actually see you cross the event horizon whilst you would calculate yourself sailing straight through without noticing any difference

We live in this reality where we become familiar about it's nature. But as a conscious being did you ask the same question I'm asking now that is "Why our reality has this specific properties and not the other way around? " There are many candidates but why this is the type of reality we live?

 

In truths, I have my perspective that truths could be classified into absolute and designed.

Let me give an example of each:

1. Absolute truth.. example is mathematics. It can't be altered or our logic can't alter or change it, therefore absolute.

2. Designed truth.. example is the law of gravity. Our logic can think that gravity could act in other way around. Unlike math, gravity doesn't have fundamental necessity why it exist that way. Math on the other hand is necessarily fundamental.

 

I hope you understand what I'm talking about. You can still ask questions with regards to my reasoning. Thank you..

Maths is axiom based - it is just that the axiomata are far more fundamental.

The bases of mathematics are so ingrained in us that we almost work back to them to understand what they are - but they are still assumptions which we deem to be true and offer no proof to their veracity. There are "mathematics" which have been constructed with different axiomatic foundations - they are just as valid. The prime example is now so well known as to be difficult to conceive the study without it - but for many centuries people assumed Euclid's parallel postulate was correct and a truth; when mathematicians took the different approach of assuming that the parallel postulate did not hold a brand new geometry was born (ok that is simlpified) much of modern science relies on that new geometry.

 

Thanks

It is quite frustrated that our scientists do not take the extra efforts to verify if their assumption about S2 center of mass location is correct or incorrect.

...

Bullshit.

This entire thread (in common with almost all your other threads) has been one misunderstanding from YOU followed by another. Yet you assume, in an act of monumental arrogance, that your failure to understand is someone else's fault. You clearly have only a passing understanding on this topic; you do not comprehend the papers you quote; your posts are a nasty amalgam of chop logic, bare assertions, and quote-mining; and yet it is the lack of effort of scientists which you focus upon. I find this thread more offensive than any of the mad pipe-dreams in Speculations - your lack of humility and inability to conceive that the weakness may be yours is truly astonishing.

I realise these are comments directed at you as a person rather than at the argument and for that I apologize - but I believe it needed to be said.

I understand that gambling is more like a disease of irrationality, but I just can't fathom how someone (with doctorate level qualifications) would think they have a system with self-evident statistics against it.

...irrationality...

versus

... self-evident statistics...

In some of us one side is dominant , in others the flip side is more important. And it is not just gambling - it is everything.

Btw - "disease of irrationality" - perfect summation

 

The vegan version is made from sea salt and ocean plastic....

To be honest after reading the ingredients on Wikipedia the "vegan version" sounds marginally more appealing

 

Haha good point. I've been replying to it from the beginning, but at least the OP had a lot of luck. Another person trying to use a system would not be as lucky. Or, more accurately, there is a discintly small chance that someone would use a system that doesn't work and get consistently positive results such that they make it seem like the system works.

I know someone with Doctoral level qualifications whose salary is paid into his life-partner's account as otherwise he would end up just trying one last time to show his system must work.

The Gambler's Fallacy is regularly trotted out here and other online fora.

The UK gaming industry took in nearly 13billion GBP more than they paid out last year!

Ironically I just came across this old article in a magazine a couple weeks ago. And I just found an online version of it. I think it speaks of this topic very accessible and interestingly. Seems we might finally be getting a handle on what gravity is really comprised of, instead of just having to rely on that old worn placeholder term "gravitrons." Which we really didn't even know what they were comprised of or why or how. Just like we are now with Dark Energy. No clue. Just know it's there. LOL

 

Anyway...you might like this...........

 

https://cosmosmagazine.com/physics/measuring-gravity-have-we-finally-cracked-it

No you have misunderstood the article. This article is regarding metrology - the science of measurement which is very interesting and can to lead to deeper insight but is not explicitly concerned with the more theoretical/ontological sides of the pursuit.

The Graviton is not a placeholder - it is a prediction of one of the most accurate models we have; it's just we haven't been able to identify one yet. We know an incredible amount about gravity and whilst we are still missing a quantum theory of gravity - we must not despair and claim we know nothing. GR is perhaps the pinnacle of early 20th century thinking - it is a set of work that is still being expanded upon and we have just managed to start proving some more parts of it; the existence of gravitational waves being the most recent.

G is just a multiplier really - it is smallish because our units are anthropocentric and cause it to be that way; there is no deep significance in 6.67e-11 m3 kg-1 s-2. In planck units it is 1. Only the dimensionless units can really be interesting in their magnitude - ~1/137 (fine structure constant) is the prime example

Basically, they want crap card players that don't know it inside out. Casinos are a scam.

Not entirely; they want people who think they have a system - many of whom know the game backwards but do not understand probability and statistics. The casinos loved card-counting; once they learned how to eject counters they found that profits were going up. It was proof that systems do exist and a huge fillip to the inveterate gambler who is the lifeblood of the casino; all the poor saps with systems were able to kid themselves that they had found a similar idea to counting and they just needed to keep it up for a bit longer for the money to start rolling in...

Casinos are a scam though

Whilst a ruler might be subdivided into millimetres you cannot necessarily assume that you are accurate to the utmost limit of your equipment (in fact you must not assume this.) And rulers over a metre long might not be marked with millimetres

He even says the situation is not all that stable (the ruler is flexing for a start), he doesn't know what will happen when the bullet will hit the wire, and that 1 in 300 is a very small error anyway

Today I learned what Swedish Fish are. And no, I am not tempted

If you're doing it in your head, pretty much. Although it takes more than a one-night winning streak to get banned. Generally, the people get caught after going back to the same casino continuously. Casinos invest a lot of their security budget in tracking people on the floor in order to detect abnormally large win rates over time.

It is not so much the win rates over time - nor is it a long process; a well trained pit boss can spot a counter very quickly, definitely before they make a decent amount of cash. After a substantial but not huge number of hands the betting and playing technique of a counter is recognizable - it no longer follows best practice nor most common practice.

I know him fairly well, but I trust him that he didn't lie.

Yes, it was because of the lottery.

That's what he said.

 

Imatfaal, is there any laws concerning the lottery/gambling?

Like casinos can throw you out for counting cards. Is there something like a lottery version of that?

nb Different jurisdictions different laws. This would - I think - be a state thing.

All provisos regarding this not being advice just opinion, I am in England, you are not a client, I work in shipping not criminal law etc - I can see no way that understanding that a third party lottery system is flawed and leveraging that could be criminal; it goes against pretty much the entirity of the system that your nation runs upon. If one was involved in the lottery then different matter entirely, if there is more than spotting a weakness in the system different again, if you contravene other state laws in the process ...

Casinos can refuse your custom, even send the boys out with you to encourage you not to return, put your name and photo on circulars etc - but I do not believe that counting cards is illegal anywhere (although carrying a computer to do so may be illegal)

You are almost certainly playing illegally as there is a rule that you must be over 18.

 

So, i simulated 3032 draws from a uniform distribution 1 - 100. I then calculated the p-value as in previous posts.

 

I did this 10000 times.

 

The simulation returned p-values of 0.05 or less with a ratio of 0.0491 of the simulations. Nearly exactly what we'd expect. The distribution of the p-values is also uniform[0,1] as we would expect under the null hypothesis.

 

The chi-squared test is performing well under these conditions. Of course it's not perfect, but i think it provides sufficient evidence to explore Raider's lottery a little more closely.

 

My code in R is below for anyone following. I forgot to set a seed so results will vary a bit.

 

 

 

% Generate multiple samples of numbers drawn from a uniform distribution 1-100.

d = 1:100 # The range of numbers from which to be selected

n = 3032 # The number of draws

N = 10000 # The number of replicates

draw <- matrix(, nrow = N, ncol = n)

p <- matrix(, nrow = N, ncol = 1)

for(i in 1:N)

{

draw[i,] <- sample(d, n, replace = TRUE)

}

for(i in 1:N)

{

p <- chisq.test(table(draw[i,]), rescale.p=TRUE)$p.value

}

#Plot the observed p-values

hist(p,

main="Histogram of P-values",

xlab="P-Value",

border="blue",

col="red",

las=1,

breaks=100)

chisq.test(p, rescale.p=TRUE, simulate.p.value = TRUE) #Test the uniformity of the p-values

# Check the proportion of p-values below standard significance level

sig <- p[p<=0.05]

length(sig)/length(p)

 

 

 

There is something amiss. I am, or we are, introducing a methodological error somewhere and I don't know enough to be aware of it.

Oh Capt My Capt - if you are around a little prod in the right direction would be great. The Beloved Leader (All Hail) is a Statisitics guru and could explain what I am doing wrong and why NIST don't list chi-squared in their testing suite for randomness; unfo he is spending far too much time writing books and theses about statistics

... and Overtone a sockpuppet of John Cuthber - that's priceless

Internet random numbers aren't very random.

Yes they are.

 

The numbers produced by RANDOM.ORG have been evaluated by eCOGRA, which is is a non-profit regulatory body that acts as the independent standards authority of the online gaming industry. For a typical gambling site, eCOGRA will oversee many aspects of its operation, including financial aspects, such as payout percentages. RANDOM.ORG is not a gambling site, so in our case, eCOGRA only evaluated the quality of the random numbers. They found that RANDOM.ORG consistently produced random numbers across scaling intervals and issued a certificate with their conclusion: ecogra-2009-06-25.pdf (1 page, 52 Kb)

The numbers and software have also been evaluated by TST Global (part of Gaming Labs International) who in 2011 examined the generator for use in games hosted on Malta. TST's report stated that RANDOM.ORG ‘distributes numbers with sufficient non-predictability and fair distribution to particular outcomes’ and concluded that it ‘complies with the requirements of the applicable Technical Standard in the jurisdiction of Malta as regulated by The Lotteries and Gaming Authority (LGA).’

Most recently, our service was evaluated by by Gaming Labs International who in 2012 examined the generator for use in lottery games in the UK. Their report concluded that it ‘distributes numbers with sufficient non-predictability, fair distribution and lack of bias to particular outcomes’ and that it ‘complies with the requirements of the applicable Technical Standard in the UK Remote Gambling jurisdiction, as regulated by the United Kingdom Gambling Commission (UKGC).’ Further details are available upon request.

Additionally, RANDOM.ORG is specifically accredited to generate randomness for use in games regulated by the following:

• Gambling Supervision Commission, Isle of Man
• Consumer and Business Services (formerly, Office of the Liquor and Gambling Commissioner), Government of South Australia
• Lotteries and Gaming Authority, Malta

Certification documents for specific jurisdictions are available upon request.

 

And here is how NIST tests for randomness of random numbers

http://csrc.nist.gov/groups/ST/toolkit/rng/stats_tests.html

I am going to bed to try to forestall the desire to start to test