"experiment designed to prove a violation of the law of probabilities" by hbd

[humanbydefault]

"Real-time experiment in progress"


Let’s put to the test my Theory based on a violation of the Laws of probabilities. There is an interesting ‘power series’ on progress these days in the game of Cash 3 in the State of Florida.

I’ll give you the basic info on specific numbers, dates they were drawn and the mathematical analysis concerning their relationship… You just have to follow up on my prediction. It’s that simple!

The URL you’ll need to verify the database and the certainty of my prediction (which by the way will be ahead of time by 10 days into the future) is the following:

http://www.floridalottery.com/exptkt/c3.pdf

Let’s see the numbers:

07/02/10 (Midday) 448 [4 + 4 + 8] = [16]!

07/14/10 (Evening) 448 [4 + 4 + 8] = [16]!

07/18/10 (Midday) 644 [6 + 4 + 4] = 14!

07/22/10 (Evening) 441 [4 + 4 +1] = [9]!

(As you can see 441 is still fresh… It was drew a couple of hours ago).

Let’s see the drawings between them:

448 <twenty four> 448 <six> 644 <eight> 441!

As you can see I already gave you the value for each winning number above. 16 is the value for the first two ‘links’ and the total of 32!

Reality (and that is what I predict that will happen) will balance the ‘equation’ looking for symmetry in the next corresponding winning number.

644 and 441 gave the total of 14 + 9 = 23! Short from 32 by 9!

As for the drawings between them the conclusion is simple:
Between the first two [448] were 24 drawings. To reach balance Reality must come up in 10 drawings (5 days) from now with a number having at least one 4 and adding up 9! Let’s see which numbers fit on that condition:

540 and of course 441 again.

*Remember that the order of numbers is not predictable, only the winning numbers in the 'link' are.


Oh I forgot something! There are no other numbers with a pair of 4s in between those numbers that I gave you. This means that whatever happens in exactly 5 days from tonight will be an irrefutable evidence that my conclusions regarding the Law of Probabilities as flawed will stand legitimate.


I will show you that those co-related patterns are frequent in that game. Not all numbers answer to this analysis! Just as sound, light and radio waves there is noise and interference around them… You just have to be aware when a signal shows up and be lucky I guess...


Keep in touch! It’s going to be a perfect opportunity for those who are eager to prove me wrong


Let’s have some fun guys…


HBD

[humanbydefault]

"real-time experiment in progress"


let’s put to the test my theory based on a violation of the laws of probabilities. There is an interesting ‘power series’ on progress these days in the game of cash 3 in the state of florida.

i’ll give you the basic info on specific numbers, dates they were drawn and the mathematical analysis concerning their relationship… you just have to follow up on my prediction. It’s that simple!

the url you’ll need to verify the database and the certainty of my prediction (which by the way will be ahead of time by 10 days into the future) is the following:

http://www.floridalottery.com/exptkt/c3.pdf

let’s see the numbers:

07/02/10 (midday) 448 [4 + 4 + 8] = [16]!

07/14/10 (evening) 448 [4 + 4 + 8] = [16]!

07/18/10 (midday) 644 [6 + 4 + 4] = 14!

07/22/10 (evening) 441 [4 + 4 +1] = [9]!

(as you can see 441 is still fresh… it was drew a couple of hours ago).

let’s see the drawings between them:

448 <twenty four> 448 <six> 644 <eight> 441!

as you can see i already gave you the value for each winning number above. 16 is the value for the first two ‘links’ and the total of 32!

reality (and that is what i predict that will happen) will balance the ‘equation’ looking for symmetry in the next corresponding winning number.

644 and 441 gave the total of 14 + 9 = 23! Short from 32 by 9!

as for the drawings between them the conclusion is simple:
between the first two [448] were 24 drawings. To reach balance reality must come up in 10 drawings (5 days) from now with a number having at least one 4 and adding up 9! Let’s see which numbers fit on that condition:

540 and of course 441 again.

*remember that the order of numbers is not predictable, only the winning numbers in the 'link' are.


oh i forgot something! There are no other numbers with a pair of 4s in between those numbers that i gave you. This means that whatever happens in exactly 5 days from tonight will be an irrefutable evidence that my conclusions regarding the law of probabilities as flawed will stand legitimate.


i will show you that those co-related patterns are frequent in that game. Not all numbers answer to this analysis! Just as sound, light and radio waves there is noise and interference around them… you just have to be aware when a signal shows up and be lucky i guess...


keep in touch! It’s going to be a perfect opportunity for those who are eager to prove me wrong


let’s have some fun guys… :-d


hbd

Today the florida lottery (cash 3 game) midday draw was exactly what i predicted it was going to be as far as five days ago (10 drawing exactly as i predicted)!



So guys! Here is the dilema you and the mathematicians reading this blog are about to face:


1) Either I am some kind of prophet, a "time traveler" with information from future events or...


2) All I have said about the existence of an objective reality that materializes the same way at all levels including the macroworld and the microworld, was true?


There is no way I could falsify [FAKE] the entry of a thread IN THIS SITE and any question regarding a suspicious act like

that should be immidiately cannalized to Robert right now!



Take a copy of both pages [the one with the prediction and this one] and show it to your professor of psichology if you happen to have one, and tell him/her that "sinchronicity" is a legitimate theory and miguel de zayas just proved it!

You could do the same with you professor of mathematics next time you show up in class from the "Summer break" and ask him/her to come up with a plausible explanation as to how in hell I was able to come up with something like this in the middle of an internet site read by hundreds...

Just don't forget to let me know his/her responses

HBD

[humanbydefault]

"Real-time experiment in progress"


Let’s put to the test my Theory based on a violation of the Laws of probabilities. There is an interesting ‘power series’ on progress these days in the game of Cash 3 in the State of Florida.

I’ll give you the basic info on specific numbers, dates they were drawn and the mathematical analysis concerning their relationship… You just have to follow up on my prediction. It’s that simple!

The URL you’ll need to verify the database and the certainty of my prediction (which by the way will be ahead of time by 10 days into the future) is the following:

http://www.floridalottery.com/exptkt/c3.pdf

Let’s see the numbers:

07/02/10 (Midday) 448 [4 + 4 + 8] = [16]!

07/14/10 (Evening) 448 [4 + 4 + 8] = [16]!

07/18/10 (Midday) 644 [6 + 4 + 4] = 14!

07/22/10 (Evening) 441 [4 + 4 +1] = [9]!

(As you can see 441 is still fresh… It was drew a couple of hours ago).

Let’s see the drawings between them:

448 <twenty four> 448 <six> 644 <eight> 441!

As you can see I already gave you the value for each winning number above. 16 is the value for the first two ‘links’ and the total of 32!

Reality (and that is what I predict that will happen) will balance the ‘equation’ looking for symmetry in the next corresponding winning number.

644 and 441 gave the total of 14 + 9 = 23! Short from 32 by 9!

As for the drawings between them the conclusion is simple:
Between the first two [448] were 24 drawings. To reach balance Reality must come up in 10 drawings (5 days) from now with a number having at least one 4 and adding up 9! Let’s see which numbers fit on that condition:

540 and of course 441 again.

*Remember that the order of numbers is not predictable, only the winning numbers in the 'link' are.


Oh I forgot something! There are no other numbers with a pair of 4s in between those numbers that I gave you. This means that whatever happens in exactly 5 days from tonight will be an irrefutable evidence that my conclusions regarding the Law of Probabilities as flawed will stand legitimate.


I will show you that those co-related patterns are frequent in that game. Not all numbers answer to this analysis! Just as sound, light and radio waves there is noise and interference around them… You just have to be aware when a signal shows up and be lucky I guess...


Keep in touch! It’s going to be a perfect opportunity for those who are eager to prove me wrong


Let’s have some fun guys…


HBD

‘Am I a prophet, a “Time-Traveler” or someone with a valid Theory?’

It’s got to be one of those three… there is no more possible responses that I could think of!

Today the game of CASH 3 corresponding to the Florida Lottery announced the winning numbers for Midday and Evening respectively:

Midday was 414!
Evening was 445!

I predicted 441 in any possible combination or 450 not just that I got it right the first time but I even got the second one too for free!

I think that you should show these two threads to your Mathematic professors, Philosophy professors (if apply) and anyone who would deny this based on their belief of PROBABILITIES.

We have a problem do we? I tell you what...

Either I tempered with TOEQUEST’s secured entry systems (which definitely you should consult it with Robert ASAP) or in fact (as it actually happened and could be confirmed by those who read my thread in the first place) I made this prediction and I said that this would prove or disprove my Theory that Reality does act on both Worlds and its influence can and should be Physically explained under one universal Theory: The Great Universal Theory of Everything!

The other possibility left is that I could temper the State Lottery Computerized System of Lottery just to put a Theory to the test… J

Now what?

Last note: It's not over yet. May be a continuation to this power series since I have experienced that as a RULE they "grow up" to seven links. My book "Lex Parsimoniae" has a couple of chapters with some examples extracted from Florida and Georgia's DATABASE of the Cash 3 Games and in all cases the power series lasted up to seven consecutives drawings... So let's hope this do the same.

[leskey]

Thanks hbd. Yes...Occam's Razor, again.

Physical and written evidence records a cataclysmic electromagnetic event since the advent of modern humans. Ancient language possessed deeper alphabetical meaning which included numerical values. The written records state that language became incoherent and civilizations collapsed as a consequence - knowledge was impotent without the ability to co-operatively and constructively share it. Over time, humanity had to resort to primitive methods to convey complex knowledge, and no matter how grand the monument all comprehension, other than superstition, was lost, until current times...

SUPERSTITION:

Etymology: Middle English supersticion, from Anglo-French, from Latin superstition-, superstitio, from superstit-, superstes standing over (as witness or survivor), from super- + stare to stand — more at stand
Date: 13th century
1 a : a belief or practice resulting from ignorance, fear of the unknown, trust in magic or chance, or a false conception of causation b : an irrational abject attitude of mind toward the supernatural, nature, or God resulting from superstition
2 : a notion maintained despite evidence to the contrary

STAND:

transitive verb
1 a : to endure or undergo successfully b : to tolerate without flinching : bear courageously c : to endure the presence or personality of d : to derive benefit or enjoyment from
2 : to remain firm in the face of
3 : to submit to
4 a : to perform the duty of b : to participate in (a military formation)
5 : to pay the cost of (a treat) : pay for
6 : to cause to stand : set upright

ENDURE:

Etymology: Middle English, from Anglo-French endurer, from Vulgar Latin *indurare, from Latin, to harden, from in- + durare to harden, endure — more at during

transitive verb
1 : to undergo (as a hardship) especially without giving in : suffer <endured great pain>
2 : to regard with acceptance or tolerance
intransitive verb
1 : to continue in the same state : last
2 : to remain firm under suffering or misfortune without yielding

DURING:

Etymology: Middle English, from present participle of duren to last, from Anglo-French durer, from Latin durare to harden, endure, last, from durus hard; perhaps akin to Sanskrit dāru wood — more at tree
Date: 14th century
1 : throughout the duration of
2 : at a point in the course of

TREE:

3 : something in the form of or resembling a tree: as a : a diagram or graph that branches usually from a simple stem or vertex without forming loops or polygons b : a much-branched system of channels especially in an animal body

SUFFER:

Etymology: Middle English suffren, from Anglo-French suffrir, from Vulgar Latin *sufferire, from Latin sufferre, from sub- up + ferre to bear — more at sub-, bear
Date: 13th century
transitive verb 1 a : to submit to or be forced to endure b : to feel keenly : labor under
2 : undergo, experience
3 : to put up with especially as inevitable or unavoidable
4 : to allow especially by reason of indifference <the eagle suffers little birds to sing — Shakespeare>intransitive verb 1 : to endure death, pain, or distress
2 : to sustain loss or damage
3 : to be subject to disability or handicap

EXPERIENCE: our reason for 'being'

Etymology: Middle English, from Anglo-French, from Latin experientia act of trying, from experient-, experiens, present participle of experiri to try, from ex- + -periri (akin to periculum attempt) — more at fear
Date: 14th century
1 a : direct observation of or participation in events as a basis of knowledge b : the fact or state of having been affected by or gained knowledge through direct observation or participation
2 a : practical knowledge, skill, or practice derived from direct observation of or participation in events or in a particular activity b : the length of such participation <has 10 years' experience in the job>
3 a : the conscious events that make up an individual life b : the events that make up the conscious past of a community or nation or humankind generally
4 : something personally encountered, undergone, or lived through
5 : the act or process of directly perceiving events or reality

...the tree of knowledge just keeps branching...

We are a defiant humanity in the face of great adversity.

[humanbydefault]

"...a belief or practice resulting from ignorance, fear of the unknown, trust in magic or chance, or a false conception of causation..." [QUOTE]

Thanks for your comment. I failed to 'connect' your thoughts with the final results of my Thought Experiment... perhaps my Phylosophical background is no match to draw the necessary conclusions from it.

I [however] took the liberty to quote a sentence that sounds a little confusing to me.

You mentioned a practice of a belief resulting from chance or magic and a false conception of causation and I have the feeling that you were referring to what I just happened to prove.

I respect you words and beliefs my brother but I fail to see the connection of all those magnificent arguments with my original intentions to prove right a perfectly serious theory and its authors (Drs. Carl Gustav Jung and Wolfgang Pauli).

I began the chapter introducing the experiences that I had with respect to Cash 3 [lottery] in my book "Lex Parsimoniae" by stablishing a parallel between fallacy and facts. It is a fallacy to believe that B happens because A happened before in the case of a mere order-relation due to a coincidental chronological series of events.

Dr. Carl Gustav Jung [Author of "Sinchronicity Theory"] had only stories and word-descriptions of events connecting the past, present and future in ways that defied logic. His theory had one single point to prove:

The violation of the Law of Probability... That's it!

To prove a Theory that relies on numbers to prevail over any other possible one you have to fight it with the same weapons it uses aginst us.

But why should I care about a psichological Theory when I am trying to introduce a physical one based on a new interpretation of numbers?

The answer is simple: because the only way to prove that Reality is one in all levels (from the smallest distance of the atom to the greatest spaces of the cosmos) we need to rely on observation and predictions based on empirical experimentation.

Reality is too fast to be simply observable by our "apparatus" (instrumentation) since the speed of that observation cannot violate "c". Entanglement and the Double slits experiments are two simple examples as to how sadly slow are we to understand Reality. There is however a way to predict what seems to be today unpredictable and the only way I see it happenning is by exercising "Sinchronicity" correctly. Sinchronicity is a Theory that could and should be employed to observe and predict Physical events (experiments) based on reference and history.

That is what I've been doing with a seemingly lucky game. Where you and others see luck, chance and no signs of causality anywhere I see the opposite. I see facts where other see fallacies. I am not an idealistic optimist foul if that is what you think but someone who's been observing patterns for years and years and have reached a great deal of serious and valuable conclusions from all that.

If you don't believe in my arguments fine! But you have to admit that I predicted a future event based on pure "luck" according to your world-views and I was correct after all...

One last thing though... If you had bet on the three possible choices I gave you [144, 414 and 441] you would have made $500.00 per dollar/bet. Make the count $100.00 on the winning would have represented $50,000.00 tax-free.

Now I appreciate greatly your earlier Phylosophical advance and your rethorical assumptions about practicing beliefs based on chance and ignorance but if I had to choose... I choose ignorance and kep the $ in my pocket... no offense.

I wonder what the other members of the forum would choose...

Thanks my friend for your comment... I wish I could say that I understood it but I didn't. Sorry!

[SteveA]

Midday was 414!
Evening was 445!

I predicted 441 in any possible combination or 450 not just that I got it right the first time but I even got the second one too for free!

Hi again. I thought I'd do a little probability analysis here.

If you're selecting numbers that can have their digits rearranged, then your above two numbers would match any of the following selections:

144
414
441
450
405
045
054
504
540

So we have 9 out of 1000 (000 to 999) possible winning selections here, if only the digits can be rearranged and this would be a (1000-9)/1000=991/1999=99.1% chance per draw of not having a winning combination.

Over a 10 day period with 2 draws each day, this would be 20 draws and the probability of not winning any of those would be 0.991^20~=83.5% or approximately 5 chances out of 6. So you'd have about 1 chance in 6 of selecting at least one winning combination out of those 20 drawings with 9 out of 1000 possible winning combinations.

That's just some info you might use if you wanted to test out your ideas, but if you allow a more diverse set of matching conditions are alter them post facto, then this would alter those probabilities (and it generally makes them quite a bit worse, depending upon how broad a set of alterations might be applied, so it's obviously best to use a consistent manner of verify the results).

A general rule of thumb often used for statistical confidence is the 95% level (or more rare than 1 chance out of 20) though, of course, if there was cherry picking of data that would distort things.

Congrats on the box match though (I didn't check anything myself). If you get a second one, that definitely wouldn't be a bad run and should fall into that "statistically significant" category, though again if there are multiple such predictions made then they all need to be included, otherwise there's a bias from post facto selective sampling.

If you want to try this with different selections or over a different range of drawings, the probability of getting at least one winning match is:

1-((1000-# selected combinations)/1000)^drawings

For example, if you selected as "box" winning numbers 213 and 888 then you have 6 permutations of 213 and only 1 of 888, which gives 7 winning combinations and if you did this over 25 drawings that would be a probability of:

1-((1000-7)/1000)^25=1-.993^25=16.1% chance of getting at least 1 correct (or again about 1 in 6).

I admit that I'm one of those skeptics, at least in terms of the lottery, any relationships I believe could exist would be either entirely too complex (or too simple ) for me to recognize, though I do believe that numbers do often imply specific forms and structure and that there should be manners in which we can see common events in terms of basic arithmetic ... but in terms of lottery drawings? No, I think I'd remain a skeptic unless you blow the roof off the odds (and then I'd be skeptical of something rigged! Sorry, that's the just me ... I'm looking for similar things, but I think it works a bit more subtly - for example, I believe there could be exist structures similar to atomic/molecular relationships on everyday scales of events, though no, I don't have many specifics nailed down yet ... still a work in progress)

[labelwench]

Numbers, probabilities and the relationships between, I believe each person develops their own perspective on.

What are the odds of being struck by lightening?

......of having your home hit by meteorites on six different occasions?

And of course, the current favorite, winning the latest 50 million lottery?

We have one ticket, as given the number of entries, increasing one's odds by number of entries is redundant. There will only be one winning combination, although any number of people are free to select it and so share in the prize.

Hence only one ticket required.

Here are a couple of short diversions. Enjoy!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CRyiVba_Kbo

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ifk9p...eature=related

[humanbydefault]

Hi again. I thought I'd do a little probability analysis here.

If you're selecting numbers that can have their digits rearranged, then your above two numbers would match any of the following selections:

144
414
441
450
405
045
054
504
540

So we have 9 out of 1000 (000 to 999) possible winning selections here, if only the digits can be rearranged and this would be a (1000-9)/1000=991/1999=99.1% chance per draw of not having a winning combination.


That's just some info you might use if you wanted to test out your ideas, but if you allow a more diverse set of matching conditions are alter them post facto, then this would alter those probabilities (and it generally makes them quite a bit worse, depending upon how broad a set of alterations might be applied, so it's obviously best to use a consistent manner of verify the results).

A general rule of thumb often used for statistical confidence is the 95% level (or more rare than 1 chance out of 20) though, of course, if there was cherry picking of data that would distort things.

Congrats on the box match though (I didn't check anything myself). If you get a second one, that definitely wouldn't be a bad run and should fall into that "statistically significant" category, though again if there are multiple such predictions made then they all need to be included, otherwise there's a bias from post facto selective sampling.


For example, if you selected as "box" winning numbers 213 and 888 then you have 6 permutations of 213 and only 1 of 888, which gives 7 winning combinations and if you did this over 25 drawings that would be a probability of:

1-((1000-7)/1000)^25=1-.993^25=16.1% chance of getting at least 1 correct (or again about 1 in 6).

I admit that I'm one of those skeptics, at least in terms of the lottery, any relationships I believe could exist would be either entirely too complex (or too simple ) for me to recognize, though I do believe that numbers do often imply specific forms and structure and that there should be manners in which we can see common events in terms of basic arithmetic ... but in terms of lottery drawings? No, I think I'd remain a skeptic unless you blow the roof off the odds (and then I'd be skeptical of something rigged! Sorry, that's the just me ... I'm looking for similar things, but I think it works a bit more subtly - for example, I believe there could be exist structures similar to atomic/molecular relationships on everyday scales of events, though no, I don't have many specifics nailed down yet ... still a work in progress)

Hi again!

I know you are one of the skeptical Steve I knew it the first time we "met" and I'm glad that you posted your opinions so we could have an OPEN discussion about it. One thing though: My goal is not to convince you... I respect other's opinions, so we could let others to evaluate what we think about these issues and others and let them too express what they believe... Is it FAIR to you? Good!

I will do honor to who honor deserves (Goethe) and use colors to identify the fragment of you comment that I will answer next... Red will be the focus, Ok?

First response:


You were absolutely right about the combination number above. I don't know if you noted that but the 'power series' that we were analyzing was made of 'twin fours'... I did ad one combo (450) that resulted in "9" but the Hamiltonian equal to "9" with twin or pairs of 4s was 441.

Second: The moment you have a pair it reduces the ODDs from 6 to just 3. ($3.00 bucks the bet).

So... 450 was a possibility and I recall saying (at least one four) 445 was implied although not specified....sorry!

Here comes the second quote:

Over a 10 day period with 2 draws each day, this would be 20 draws and the probability of not winning any of those would be 0.991^20~=83.5% or approximately 5 chances out of 6. So you'd have about 1 chance in 6 of selecting at least one winning combination out of those 20 drawings with 9 out of 1000 possible winning combinations.

I'm sorry to cut you here in the middle of an skeptical inspired discurse, but what are you talking about here, Steve?

"2 draws each days over the period of ten days....?"

Did he say ten days?

My Goodness! You haven't even read my first PREDICTION, did you? I mean... That is the only plausible explanation to your statement.

I said : [DUE TO OCCUR IN"FIVE DAYS!"]

I said : [DUE TO HAPPEN IN "10 DRAWINGS"]

I never said BET on those numbers everyday until day 5.... For God sake, Steve! That is a misinterpretation of my word not to say a misquoting of what I intend to prove.

Why would I want to waste my pocket money before Reality was scheduled to "RETURN" and "FIX THE PROBLEM"....?

I gave ALL OF YOU the specific day of the winning drawing and you come up with this?


"If you want to try this with different selections or over a different range of drawings, the probability of getting at least one winning match is:

1-((1000-# selected combinations)/1000)^drawings"

You make this sound like your calculation of probabilities... at least it sounds to me like it. What you just said is for public information and by law it has been printed in the back of every ticket of Cash 3, Steve. We thank you for bringing the matter here but I personally would appreciate if you quote the source first. You see I do it every time I can.

As for the 1: 1000 it comes from the simple 10 x 10 x 10 = 1000 operation. The thing is that such operation was theoretically based on the Law of Probabilities which I happened to violate here.

Sinchronicity was designed to offer empirical evidences that such a Law was flawed. To me it is... for skepticals it isn't. Dr. Carl Gustav Jung along with his co-author in "Sinchronicity" Dr. Wolfgang Pauli [I guess everyone knows who the last one was] worked together in this issue for years, However it is my belief that the only way that one could prove an incomplete and flawed a mathematical Law is "fighting back" with the marvelous help of numbers... The same numbers used by the deceiving Law.

Numbers that I just happen to "fix up" a little bit using an "Object-image relationship", something called "Mirror Analysis" and a newly improved 'conection' (never done before) between numerical results - prime numbers and a mirror-analysis on the results with primes... pretty clever, don't you think, Steve?

You need me to offer you another proof... I agree but you need to give me time to pick it up... you see as I said in my first posting: there is a lot of noise and interference out there...and it is logical too. Reality comes in quanta of it and anything out from our FRAME of EXISTENCE would decisively do what Planet Mercury does and we can't explain with current theories... deviate from its "timely space-progression" just as the "green photon" deviated before hitting "Alice" in Entanglement... in some "inexplicable ways".

HBD


If I missed the rest of you comment you would understand why, your arguments could be resumed in just one word "STATISTICS" and I don't like the sound of it. Statistics sound too close to STATIC and there is nothing of the like in this marvelous universe of ours. I published in my book (Lex Parsimoniae) that "the Law of Probabilities is a pittiful representation of an incomplete Reality in a primitive two dimensional context". I expect a great deal of disagreement from carrier Mathematicians though... But hey! "A revolution here and then is a good thing, don't you think?..." [from the movie "Hunt for the Red October"]

[humanbydefault]

These were my words (literally):

"As for the drawings between them the conclusion is simple:
Between the first two [448] were 24 drawings. To reach balance Reality must come up in 10 drawings (5 days) from now with a number having at least one 4 and adding up 9!..."

Why would I waste time and letters trying to explain the exact number of drawings between each 'links' if I didn't have a point to make?

This is for those who use this kind of strategy; intentionally or not:

All we are (here) in this Forum is credibility. Whatever you write about your thoughts, views of the universe and critics against other's have [whether you agree or not with me] consequences in future comments you may plan to post.

You see... "I can deal with numbers and probabilitites and I don't want "REP POWERS" and I don't want "DEGREES" all I want is for you to show me some respect and appologize for the way you misquoted my words." >Sorry if that sounded like "A few good men" script....

We can't continue ahead without this premise... I'm sorry Steve. For me quoting is a sacred word and it has been manipulated especially by sophists in past history.

Next time you write in any of my threads please don't forget to refer to your mistaken quote of my words so we could go ahead into other subjects as well.

HBD

[humanbydefault]

Numbers, probabilities and the relationships between, I believe each person develops their own perspective on.

What are the odds of being struck by lightening?

......of having your home hit by meteorites on six different occasions?

And of course, the current favorite, winning the latest 50 million lottery?

We have one ticket, as given the number of entries, increasing one's odds by number of entries is redundant. There will only be one winning combination, although any number of people are free to select it and so share in the prize.

Hence only one ticket required.

Here are a couple of short diversions. Enjoy!

There is a difference between a lottery ticket and a Cash 3 ticket and I dedicated long arguments to explain why I chose the second one. Bolt of lightnning strikes are explained under Faraday's arguments the fact that we cannot predict where the next potential difference will get closer to the storm is the reason why high buildings must have required safety systems to prevent accidental electrical shocks...

I will skip my argumentation about the difference between a game whose winning balls are drawn one by one from a limited number of it and another based on equal number of balls and located in three diffrent machines... If interested you can always download my book (for around $2.00) from LULU.

The fact of the matter is that I have a quite few examples of how (given a correct analysis and a correct 'power series') the Law of Probabilities was violated. As I recall saying earlier in the conclusion of one of my postings here:

It will take more effort and time to prove me wrong than to try to find out what were "we" missing in this Reality Equation all this time...

Thanks.

HBD

Look guys... I got to go to work in a few minutes but I promise you when I return to post right here one of the most incredible 'power series' I've ever witnessed myself. I didn't have the chance to publish it in my first book because it was in progress by then but now that it is finished I want you (and Mathematicians that I know are following this thread) to have a closer look at it and have a leap of faith while analyzing it.

To keep an open-minded attitude is sometimes more difficult than to keep talking and talking without anything important to say...