In my response, I apply a logical principle named reductio ad absurdum. I use satirical metaphors to stress the absurdity of the opposing viewpoint. I apply, for example, satirical metaphors that might appear intent to ridicule an opposing viewpoint.
Not only do I say “lottery balls have memory” — I take the next step and say “balls have better minds than most humans as them balls can calculate standard deviation and FFG median”! I didn't think I had to add that famous BRRRRRRRRAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!! to indicate satire or reductio ad absurdum!
The numbered lotto balls "don't have memory" but can be analyzed mathematically for the purpose to win. The lottery balls are numbers following probability and statistical rules. Indeed, the lotto balls can have engraved on them words instead of numbers; e.g. cat, dog, fish — some of the favorites in the virtual world! However, the numbers make mathematics possible and therefore human life easier. It is far easier to represent two dice as 2-1, instead of dog-cat! The sum of the two faces is sanely easier to deal with as 3 instead of catdogsum!
The misfits of probability theory (includes your teachers/professors) strongly advocate the existence of one and only one element: Individual probability, p. Real-life, the entire Universe indeed, consists of two other fundamental elements that describe randomness: degree of certainty, DC, and number of trials, N. Add to them the watchdog of Almighty Randomness: standard deviation.
We should always say and mean "Good luck!" For it is not dicey but just random. Thousands of people die every day randomly (unexpectedly, we say) — we think we were immortal by the grace of gods. Thousands of gods have died randomly since Homo sapiens created probability tools sui generis named GODS.
Humans can't live without analyzing phenomena in the fashion of numbers.
Authored on July 26, 2001 in response to a reply in a lottery newsgroup; later updates to this Web page by the same author.
• Your reply, bitter one, has only one merit. You did not call me, this author, an idiot, or a moron, etc. The mud-bottom human category replies in that fashion, especially when yours truly is concerned. Your reply does not deal with the heart of the matter, however. A formula is at the center of my post: the Fundamental Formula of Gambling (FFG):
where: N = the number of tries for an event of probability = p to appear with the degree of certainty = DC.
Is that probability formula flawed, in your opinion? If so, why and/or where? Argue mathematically. Based on FFG, any lotto number does repeat, in over 50% of the cases, after a number of real lottery drawings less than or equal to its median (the point where the degree of certainty DC = 50%). Looks like the numbers remember when the time has come to hit again! For if they don't hit inside the FFG median, they are left outside and get cold!
That's the formula (option F = FFG: N Trials from p and DC). And that was SuperFormula, the best software for probability, mathematics, statistics.
Move next to real life cases. Take a lottery database, any lottery in the world. As far as I know, FFG has not been invalidated in any world lottery or lotto game. Do you have evidence to the contrary? Evidence based on real-life lotto and lottery drawings (or draws, or results, or history). If yes, you need make it public to support your argument.
Given the fact that numbers do repeat more often under the median, the same is true about pairings of lotto numbers. Again, FFG has been validated in any lottery database. You can analyze all lotto games in this great world of ours. You can also invent your lotto games by simulating random drawings. I can guarantee that, within an optimal draw range (about 3 times the biggest lotto number), you will find pairings that did not come out a single time; meanwhile other pairings did come out at least 6 times. Do you have evidence against this aspect of FFG? If yes, you need make it public to support your argument.
Last but not least, my post presented a 49-line lotto wheel yielding far better results than a 163-line static lotto wheel. Do you have evidence to the contrary? If yes, you need make it public to support your argument.
I hope there is more to your “argument” than the over-overused cliché “the lottery balls do not have memory”. I think it was a dandy statement only when it was heard for the first time. Whoever the author was, the phrase was catchy. The statement sounds utterly idiotic now, because of overuse. I can smell an idiot as soon as he states: “The lottery balls do not have memory”. He knows nothing else. His brain can't take the torturing effort of reasoning.
Let's take a lotto 6/48 example. A lotto ball will come out with the probability p = 6/48, approximately. Is that so because the lotto ball has a mind? The lotto ball #23 came out first in the drawing. “Hurrah! I knew it all along! I had a 1 in 8 or 12.5% chance to jump out first. My sweetheart, #22 has a 5/47 chance to join me! I miss her! I hate it! That impotent lottery official again, with sticky fingers and libidinal eyes! I don't want him to touch my sweetheart!” Meanwhile, in the drawing chamber, she-#22 is reasoning: “Why does FFG persecute me? Why am I paired so often with that kid, #23? I am looking at the stylish #41. What sticks him to she-#48? …”
The morale is: the lottery balls will always come out despite the fact that they “don't have memory”. But the lotto balls are numbered or indexed; they represent numbers. Therefore they follow mathematical rules. The lotto balls do not create the rules, because “they don't have minds”. Nor do the rules have minds of their own. But the rules reveal themselves to humans. They, the humans, are the only entities with minds. They, the humans, have also emotions. Emotions have the tendency to reveal themselves to the minds as rules. Chances are the minds will find the rules if going one step beyond the emotions.
When arguing, it's best to use numbers as much as possible. The words are more likely to be prone to overuse and bias.