Predicting lottery numbers.

[NortonH]

It occurs to me that the principles behind the selection of the lottery numbers are quite simple.
We have a near spherical box containing about thirty ping pong balls which are rolled around and then one at a time is selected.
The physics is very simple.
1. If two balls of equal mass collide then they move off at ninety degrees to each other.
2. When a ball strikes a solid surface the angle of reflection is the same as the angle of incidence.
3. Gravity operates.

Surely with those three very simple, irrefutable laws of physics it should be easy to predict next week lottery numbers.
 

Edited November 11, 2018 by NortonH

[Strange]

22 minutes ago, NortonH said:

Surely with those three very simple, irrefutable laws of physics it should be easy to predict next week lottery numbers.

"Small differences in initial conditions, such as those due to rounding errors in numerical computation, yield widely diverging outcomes for such dynamical systems, rendering long-term prediction of their behavior impossible in general.^[2][3] This happens even though these systems are deterministic, meaning that their future behavior is fully determined by their initial conditions, with no random elements involved.^[4] "

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chaos_theory

At some point, you need more accuracy that is available because of quantum effects and that is greater than can be computed.

 

[John Cuthber]

1 hour ago, NortonH said:

. If two balls of equal mass collide then they move off at ninety degrees to each other.

Really.

Playing pool must be interesting in your world.

 

[Strange]

5 minutes ago, John Cuthber said:

1 hour ago, NortonH said:

. If two balls of equal mass collide then they move off at ninety degrees to each other.

Really.

Ouch! I missed that.

Using that sort of physics would make it even harder to predict the lottery!

[John Cuthber]

I presume he garbled this
https://mechasco.wordpress.com/2014/05/23/billiard-balls-and-the-90-degree-rule/

[NortonH]

I am not talking about balls rolling along a surface I am talking about balls colliding in air.

Have you seen the lottery number generator? It does not look like a billiard table.

Do you get it yet?

So you say that the problem cannot be solved because of the initial conditions but surely if we took thousands of accurate measurements and used massive computers that would not be a problem.

[Raider5678]

1 minute ago, NortonH said:

So you say that the problem cannot be solved because of the initial conditions but surely if we took thousands of accurate measurements and used massive computers that would not be a problem.

It wouldn't be a problem if you took thousands millions of accurate measurements and used massive amounts of computing power.

Now. Which lottery is going to let you do that?

[NortonH]

The lottery does not have to let you do anything. It is easy to estimate the size of the box and a ping pong ball is pretty easy to find.

There need only be thirty six balls. THIRTY SIX. That is nothing in terms of numbers that computers can handle.

In any case I happen to know more than I have let on. There are already people doing this and making accurate predictions.

 

[John Cuthber]

7 minutes ago, NortonH said:

There are already people doing this and making accurate predictions.

 

I strongly suspect that there are people who claim to do so and who are quite happy to sell you those predictions.

14 minutes ago, NortonH said:

I am not talking about balls rolling along a surface I am talking about balls colliding in air.

Indeed, but you were talking nonsense.

However, here's a quick question for you.

Is it going to be easier to do the calculations in 2 dimensions, or three?
 

7 minutes ago, NortonH said:

In any case I happen to know more than I have let on.

That's not  hard.

Seriously, this is an essentially impossible problem to calculate.
And in practice, it's impossible.
Even if you were in the audience so you could "see" the initial conditions, they won't let you bet after the draw starts, so it's too late.

 

7 minutes ago, NortonH said:

It is easy to estimate the size of the box

Yes it is, and if you get it wrong by a small fraction of a percent, you will get the wrong answer.

Fundamentally, you seem to have missed a very obvious fact.

If the outcome was predictable from the laws of physics then, since those laws are the same every week, the numbers drawn would be the same every week.
They are not.

Edited November 11, 2018 by John Cuthber

[NortonH]

4 minutes ago, John Cuthber said:

Indeed, but you were talking nonsense

How? Are you saying that the laws I mentioned do not cover the scenario I detailed? How is what I wrote nonsense?

 

10 minutes ago, John Cuthber said:

Is it going to be easier to do the calculations in 2 dimensions, or three?

I am sure it is more complicated in 3D but so what? That is the problem we have to solve unless they start selecting lottery numbers using a billiard table.

 

12 minutes ago, John Cuthber said:

If the outcome was predictable from the laws of physics then, since those laws are the same every week, the numbers drawn would be the same every week.
They are not.

The laws of physics are the same every week. It is just the initial set up and the environment that changes each time.

Anyway, people are making accurate predictions and so, no matter what objections you have, it shows it can be done.

[Ken Fabian]

2 hours ago, NortonH said:

It is just the initial set up and the environment that changes each time.

NortonH - the problem is exactly that; the initial set up and the environment changes each time - and we have no means to determine the differences down to the precision that is required to predict the final outcome. As has been pointed out, if it were pre-determined, because of the physics of balls in motion with collisions, air flow turbulence etc, the result would be the same every time.

If anyone is accurately predicting lottery numbers it is news to me - and if they are, I would be looking for some kind of fraud before I would assume someone can calculate the outcome by predicting the motions of the balls.

[NortonH]

So you are saying that the starting conditions need to be known to a high accuracy because small errors propagate and increase with each iteration of the model.

It is an interesting idea. But surely a mere 30 balls cannot present that hard a problem with todays computers.

I believe people are making accurate predictions and when they make incorrect predictions they can use that information to modify the algorithm. 

[koti]

9 minutes ago, NortonH said:

...But surely a mere 30 balls cannot present that hard a problem with todays computers.

 

It's not even the case of computing power, you would need to develop the technical means of measuring that 30 ball system in real time all the way down to the quantum level. That is currently impossible by a long margin. 

[NortonH]

Well I don't see how you can say it is impossible when people are actually predicting lottery numbers fifty to a hundred years in advance.

 

[Sensei]

3 minutes ago, NortonH said:

Well I don't see how you can say it is impossible when people are actually predicting lottery numbers fifty to a hundred years in advance.

That's nice rubbish..

If they would do it truly, they would be on the Forbes list..

 

 

Edited November 12, 2018 by Sensei

[NortonH]

1 minute ago, Sensei said:

If they would do it truly, they would be on the Forbes list..

Sure If they could do it for next week. I am not claiming that. I am talking about models that can predict fifty to a hundred years out. 

[Sensei]

2 minutes ago, NortonH said:

I am talking about models that can predict fifty to a hundred years out. 

You can't predict numbers the next week, but you claim to predict numbers in the next fifty years.. ? Right. Pick up any random numbers. They will be picked up randomly in the next fifty years of lottery.. in random order.. in the random day of lottery...

 

[NortonH]

Just now, Sensei said:

You can't predict numbers the next week, but you claim to predict numbers in the next fifty years.

Hmm. Interesting observation. I now suspect that the people who say that they can make these predictions 100 years out might be talking rubbish.

In fact the more I think about the more concerned I am with the fact that their predictions are so far into the future that they know that they can never be held accountable for them if they fail.

Thanks Sensei!

[Sensei]

25 minutes ago, NortonH said:

Hmm. Interesting observation. I now suspect that the people who say that they can make these predictions 100 years out might be talking rubbish.

In fact the more I think about the more concerned I am with the fact that their predictions are so far into the future that they know that they can never be held accountable for them if they fail.

Thanks Sensei!

In C/C++ there is pseudo-random number generator. It's not multi-thread safe.

You initialize it by using srand() function.

http://www.cplusplus.com/reference/cstdlib/srand/

Usually it's initialized by current time (which is changing, all the time different value).

This ensures that later generated numbers are unique i.e. every time program is run, sequence of "random" numbers is different.

To get pseudo-random number there is used rand() function:

http://www.cplusplus.com/reference/cstdlib/rand/

If you will make loop, finite or infinite loop, which will be calling rand() function and incrementing array element at index pointed by rand() result, you will have array with the most randomly picked up numbers. Perfect random-number generator will not promote any of these numbers. They will be incremented in such a way that none will be growing when the others don't grow.

srand(time(NULL));
long long table[ RAND_MAX ] = { 0 };
for( int i = 0; ; i++ )
{
    int value = rand();
    table[ value ]++;
    // verify if some value is picked up more often than the other here..
}
	

 

If I would say "there will be picked up ball with number 1 in the next 100 years in lottery", actually I am saying pure truth. Ball with 1 will be picked up (so the same the all other numbers!), but I didn't say, which day of lottery, and what will be other numbers...

 

Edited November 12, 2018 by Sensei

[NortonH]

I think you are right!

So if we make loads of predictions and only every discuss the ones which appeared to be roughly right and bury all the dud ones we can pretend to have a credible model. It is so obvious when you think about it.

I allowed myself to be conned by a sleight of hand about 'averages' being obtained from a large number of independent trajectories and expectation values obtained by taking an arithmetic mean of many possible outcomes. Of course there is only one future trajectory for a set of balls in a lotto machine and the expected average is useless.

This is really coming clear now.

Thanks Sensei!

[iNow]

What a pathetically long walk full of mental gymnastics just to obliquely challenge the credibility of climate models, climate models which are themselves proving to be more and more accurate with each passing day. Did I mention how pathetic this all is?

[NortonH]

7 minutes ago, iNow said:

What a pathetically long walk full of mental gymnastics just to obliquely challenge the credibility of climate models, climate models which are themselves proving to be more and more accurate with each passing day. Did I mention how pathetic this all is?

I never mentioned climate models. You are now trying to hijack the thread. I will not report you but I will not be party to this.

[iNow]

Just now, NortonH said:

I never mentioned climate models. You are now trying to hijack the thread. I will not report you but I will not be party to this.

Report whatever you want. Our posts aren’t made in a vacuum, even though rather often it appears that your head is quite likely trapped within one.

Perhaps you forgot that posts are saved an searchable? 

For example, see essentially all of your posts in this whole thread: 

 

[NortonH]

So now you are roping in year old threads to carry one some sort of vendetta whilst you hijack this one??

OK. I will report it then.

[swansont]

49 minutes ago, NortonH said:

Sure If they could do it for next week. I am not claiming that. I am talking about models that can predict fifty to a hundred years out. 

!

Moderator Note

What models are these, and who is making these predictions?

an answer is required.