5 ms·

It's no more/ less probable than any other combination, right?

macspoofing 6y ago
If the probability distribution gives equal weight to all the numbers, then yes. But the fact that a sequence that is semantically meaningful to humans (in such a profound way) came up should raise some questions, because there may be some funny business going on. At the very least, it you want to audit the lottery just to give people confidence it isn't rigged.
fimdomeio 6y ago
if you're a completely logic person then yes. I guess the problem here is that a lot of people will always think this was a scam as they do not understand that 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 is as likely to happen as 2 1 3 4 5 6 7 8 9. And there's there's the other step... if we can make people have this kind of thinking then very easily this kinds of games would end as people would figure out it's just a waste of money.
- jcranmer 6y ago
  I believe that the lottery in question picks a combination, not a permutation, and writes the combination in ascending order. But it's not particularly clear from the documentation.
- idolaspecus 6y ago
  I don't think you're correct. Imagine you code a random number generator and run it ten times and get the same number every time. A "completely logical" person would probably assume there's a bug in their program. In fact, this is basic Bayesian reasoning.
idolaspecus 6y ago
Yes, but the outcome 5 6 7 8 9 10 is also evidence that something is amiss. If you can discern some structure in some random sequence of numbers, that's evidence that it's not random.
- PhasmaFelis 6y ago
  It's kind of the opposite: if a random number generator never produces "pretty" sequences, that's evidence that it's not truly random. If it produces pretty sequences at significantly greater than expected rates, that would be suspicious.
  - idolaspecus 6y ago
    Your comment is basically correcet, but not as a refutation of mine. Your point is the same as mine: certain "special" outcomes at certain rates are evidence of implementation flaws in our random number generator even though they're not any more or less likely given an actually perfect RNG.
    - deleted 6y ago
      [deleted]
- BenjiWiebe 6y ago
  Not really, no. Humans are good at spotting patterns, even when none exist. AND.... Given a truly random number generator, there WILL be patterns in various subsets of the numbers.
  - idolaspecus 6y ago
    The thing is that the lottery is not a truly random number generator. It's a physical process implemented by humans, subject to design flaws. So how can we detect whether or not the random number generator we've built has any flaws? By using sound Bayesian reasoning and experiment. If we run the process and it gives us the same number 100 times in a row in the first 100 results, we should adjust our priors and assume what we've built is not in fact a random number generator.
- tromp 6y ago
  In a long enough random sequence of numbers, small scale patterns are inevitable, as their absence would in itself constitute a (large scale) pattern. The small scale is only logarithmic in the sequence length though...
nabla9 6y ago
No, but the sum you win will be significantly less than normal lottery win. 1/20 in this case.
devit 6y ago
Only if the lottery works as advertised. Such a sequence, assuming a low total number of draws, is pretty strong evidence in favor of the theory that the balls were put in sequentially and were supposed to be randomized but the randomization didn't actually happen.
TwoBit 6y ago
How often does the computer ticket "quick pick" system generate this combination?

If the probability distribution gives equal weight to all the numbers, then yes. But the fact that a sequence that is semantically meaningful to humans (in such a profound way) came up should raise some questions, because there may be some funny business going on. At the very least, it you want to audit the lottery just to give people confidence it isn't rigged.

fimdomeio 6y ago

if you're a completely logic person then yes. I guess the problem here is that a lot of people will always think this was a scam as they do not understand that 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 is as likely to happen as 2 1 3 4 5 6 7 8 9. And there's there's the other step... if we can make people have this kind of thinking then very easily this kinds of games would end as people would figure out it's just a waste of money.

jcranmer 6y ago
I believe that the lottery in question picks a combination, not a permutation, and writes the combination in ascending order. But it's not particularly clear from the documentation.
idolaspecus 6y ago
I don't think you're correct. Imagine you code a random number generator and run it ten times and get the same number every time. A "completely logical" person would probably assume there's a bug in their program. In fact, this is basic Bayesian reasoning.

idolaspecus 6y ago

Yes, but the outcome 5 6 7 8 9 10 is also evidence that something is amiss. If you can discern some structure in some random sequence of numbers, that's evidence that it's not random.

PhasmaFelis 6y ago
It's kind of the opposite: if a random number generator never produces "pretty" sequences, that's evidence that it's not truly random. If it produces pretty sequences at significantly greater than expected rates, that would be suspicious.
- idolaspecus 6y ago
  Your comment is basically correcet, but not as a refutation of mine. Your point is the same as mine: certain "special" outcomes at certain rates are evidence of implementation flaws in our random number generator even though they're not any more or less likely given an actually perfect RNG.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
BenjiWiebe 6y ago
Not really, no. Humans are good at spotting patterns, even when none exist. AND.... Given a truly random number generator, there WILL be patterns in various subsets of the numbers.
- idolaspecus 6y ago
  The thing is that the lottery is not a truly random number generator. It's a physical process implemented by humans, subject to design flaws. So how can we detect whether or not the random number generator we've built has any flaws? By using sound Bayesian reasoning and experiment. If we run the process and it gives us the same number 100 times in a row in the first 100 results, we should adjust our priors and assume what we've built is not in fact a random number generator.
tromp 6y ago
In a long enough random sequence of numbers, small scale patterns are inevitable, as their absence would in itself constitute a (large scale) pattern. The small scale is only logarithmic in the sequence length though...

nabla9 6y ago

No, but the sum you win will be significantly less than normal lottery win. 1/20 in this case.

devit 6y ago

Only if the lottery works as advertised. Such a sequence, assuming a low total number of draws, is pretty strong evidence in favor of the theory that the balls were put in sequentially and were supposed to be randomized but the randomization didn't actually happen.

TwoBit 6y ago

How often does the computer ticket "quick pick" system generate this combination?