I am not saying you should win something, just that if you miss by a fraction of a second then you were "closer" to winning than if you missed by day and a half.
Giraffe107
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Aug 16, 2007
- Messages
- 1,443
In our local lottery you have second, third, forth division prizes, where you got several of the numbers correct. In your example, 5 would be the closest as you have one of the winning numbers (although I believe you need at least two numbers to win the most minor prize which is about $0.50).
stilicho
Trurl's Electronic Bard
- Joined
- Feb 6, 2007
- Messages
- 4,757
But the losing combination bought a nanosecond before the winning combination is just as arbitrary a combination as the winning combination. There is no closeness as all the combinations that were bought are included in those possibly winning or losing.
Put it this way. The winning combination you bought a nanosecond after the losing combination had no closer a chance of winning than the one bought just beforehand but lost.
Code:
abcde
fgh[hilite]i[/hilite]j
klmno
pqrst
uvwxyThey sell is a lottery ticket for each letter.
To find the winner of the jackpot they throw a dart at the grid.
They hit the letter "i"
Would you not accept the fact that the owners of the tickets with the letter h, j, d, n came "closer to winning" the jackpot than the owner of the ticket with the letter "u" ?
If spatial proximity is an adequate measure of winning "closeness" in this example, then why not agree that time proximity is also an adequate measure of winning "closeness" of the lottery described in the OP ?
And if this is the case then 4) is the right answer ?
And not all loser are equal.
Last edited:
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
Closer how? Closer in time?
But the rules of the lottery don't recognize temporal proximity to the winning number: the number that loses by a fraction of a second is just as much a loser as the number that loses by a day and a half.
In effect, all times other than the winning time are equally--and infinitely--far from the winning time. A fraction of a second really is no closer than a day and a half.
Please look at it in the context of the spatial example in my previous message.
Of course the rules says you do not win anything if you do not have the letter "i" on your ticket. Nonetheless...
Are all letters equal losers ?
Are all letters infinitely far from the letter "i" ?
Did ticket "j" came closer to winning than ticket "u" ?
My answers would be: No, No, Yes.
Last edited:
Not sure if we understand each other,
Let me simplify by drawing 1 number instead of 6 numbers.
We examine (afterward) the random sequence of draw generated by the computer for the Quick-Pick tickets, it is:
...
...
2
5
6
8(the jackpot)
7
9
...
...
My ticket (6) is a "quick pick" and was generated by the computer right before and close in the temporal sequence to the winning ticket.
I know it is not winning anything, that is not my point. My point is that my Quick-Pick ticket is "close" to winning. Closer than say a Quick-Pick ticket bought a day and a half later.
Proximity in time that is analogous to proximity in space. (see message 24)
(By Quick-Pick I mean numbers generated by a computer.)
Last edited:
ConspicuousCarl
Thinker
- Joined
- Sep 20, 2010
- Messages
- 149
They are different because a hockey score is a value representing a tally of events. A lottery number is not a value representing any real thing of varying levels, it is just a string of digits.
If hockey teams just picked their scores and hoped to match some winning pair of numbers, then losing with 6-0 would be the same as losing with 1-0.
ConspicuousCarl
Thinker
- Joined
- Sep 20, 2010
- Messages
- 149
Only if you don't follow it through. There is no such thing as almost happening unless you pose it as a possibility, and it wasn't.
I know, and that is what I am calling bunk. You are trying to make it seem reasonable by constructing a situation which invites the tiny belief in the possibility that your randomly-generated number could have been different. It wasn't, and it couldn't.
Modified
Philosopher
- Joined
- Sep 13, 2006
- Messages
- 6,985
Only if the players are the ones throwing the darts and aiming for their own letters, or they are in some way predicting what the thrower might do. Otherwise, from the players' point of view it's a random pick like any other, and any measure of closeness is as meaningless as any other.
stilicho
Trurl's Electronic Bard
- Joined
- Feb 6, 2007
- Messages
- 4,757
Try thinking about it this way, nimzov. You and I sit down and each write down a number between 0 and 9. We do this until we get a match. Which of the previous tries (or the ones afterwards, for that matter) were "closest" to the match?
Two Toed Sloth
Scholar
- Joined
- Jun 13, 2010
- Messages
- 94
I chose ticket 5.
For similar reasons stated above;
6 conditions are required to be filled for victory,
ticket one fills 0, ticket two fills 0, ticket three fills 0 and ticket four fills 0
ticket five fills 1 condition out of 6 and is therefore closer.
Regardless of closeness a miss is a miss is a miss.
but yeah 'closer' is definitely up for interpretation. I like the closer in time idea, I would not have thought of that.
For similar reasons stated above;
6 conditions are required to be filled for victory,
ticket one fills 0, ticket two fills 0, ticket three fills 0 and ticket four fills 0
ticket five fills 1 condition out of 6 and is therefore closer.
Regardless of closeness a miss is a miss is a miss.
but yeah 'closer' is definitely up for interpretation. I like the closer in time idea, I would not have thought of that.
Loss Leader
I would save the receptionist., Moderator
There are no "special prizes" in the lottery for interesting number combinations. The only prize is for matching numbers exactly.
If we didn't know the winning numbers, all five sets would be equal in closeness. There would be no way of knowing that there was anything special about sets 1-4. Only post hoc can we see anything about 1-4 that is the least bit interesting (performing some mental gymnastics along the way).
Ticket 5 is the only one that even vaguely tried to fulfill the conditions of a win. All winning tickets will have the number (12) that was on ticket five. No winning tickets will have any of the numbers on any of the other four tickets. Thus, the winning ticket belongs best with a set that includes ticket 5.
5 is the closest.
If we didn't know the winning numbers, all five sets would be equal in closeness. There would be no way of knowing that there was anything special about sets 1-4. Only post hoc can we see anything about 1-4 that is the least bit interesting (performing some mental gymnastics along the way).
Ticket 5 is the only one that even vaguely tried to fulfill the conditions of a win. All winning tickets will have the number (12) that was on ticket five. No winning tickets will have any of the numbers on any of the other four tickets. Thus, the winning ticket belongs best with a set that includes ticket 5.
5 is the closest.
Gord_in_Toronto
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Jul 22, 2006
- Messages
- 26,460
The concept of solving a mathematical problem (ignoring the many possible definitions of "closeness") using a poll strikes me as highly hilarious. My first laugh of the day. Thanks. 
Code:
abcde
fgh[hilite]i[/hilite]j
klmno
pqrst
uvwxyCarry this spatial closeness to temporal closeness.
Last edited:
I am using only two definitions, spatial and temporal,The concept of solving a mathematical problem (ignoring the many possible definitions of "closeness") using a poll strikes me as highly hilarious. My first laugh of the day. Thanks.
bruto
Penultimate Amazing
I still say that closeness in this case is irrelevant, because winning or losing is essentially a binary operation, distinguished from the manner in which things happen. It does not matter how interesting or elegant or mathematically amusing the journey to your loss is. When you count results, win versus lose, all the characteristics of your loss are shed, and all losses are equivalent.
Imagine you're in a target shooting championship. At the personal, immediate level, a near miss is more interesting than a total failure to hit the barn. But if there is an elimination tournament, a person who loses every round by a hair is no closer to the championship than a person who hits the weathervane every time. When you get to the tallying, all losses are equivalent.
Imagine you're in a target shooting championship. At the personal, immediate level, a near miss is more interesting than a total failure to hit the barn. But if there is an elimination tournament, a person who loses every round by a hair is no closer to the championship than a person who hits the weathervane every time. When you get to the tallying, all losses are equivalent.
"I still say that closeness in this case is irrelevant, because winning or losing is essentially a binary operation, " bruto
===
Coming first in a race is also a binary result. Does not mean you cannot measure the closeness to winning.
In the context of the dart, here is a rudimentary definition.
In the dart example a definition of closer could use the size of the random variation or fluctuation in the trajectory of the dart to hit letter "j" compare to hitting the size of the random variation or fluctuation letter u.
As the dart goes along its trajectory, the probability of hitting a particular letter changes. A definition of closeness could use that fact. And in the example given, if you own ticket "j" you came closer to winning than if you own ticket "u".
===
Coming first in a race is also a binary result. Does not mean you cannot measure the closeness to winning.
In the context of the dart, here is a rudimentary definition.
In the dart example a definition of closer could use the size of the random variation or fluctuation in the trajectory of the dart to hit letter "j" compare to hitting the size of the random variation or fluctuation letter u.
As the dart goes along its trajectory, the probability of hitting a particular letter changes. A definition of closeness could use that fact. And in the example given, if you own ticket "j" you came closer to winning than if you own ticket "u".
Last edited:
Vorticity
Fluid Mechanic
- Joined
- Apr 4, 2002
- Messages
- 2,677
I hope it's clear that this is not a mathematical question, dealing with literal and well-defined mathematical ideas of "closeness". Rather, it is a cognitive science question dealing with our perception of the notion of "closeness".
Douglas Hofstadter has written extensively on this topic, especially in Godel, Escher, Bach.
A similar type of question is as follows:
Consider the following string of numbers: "543212345"
Which of the following strings of numbers is "closer" to the above string?
A) "543212344"
B) "4321234"
Don't use math to arrive at an answer.
Douglas Hofstadter has written extensively on this topic, especially in Godel, Escher, Bach.
A similar type of question is as follows:
Consider the following string of numbers: "543212345"
Which of the following strings of numbers is "closer" to the above string?
A) "543212344"
B) "4321234"
Don't use math to arrive at an answer.