imatfaal

nb Different jurisdictions different laws. This would - I think - be a state thing. All provisos regarding this not being advice just opinion, I am in England, you are not a client, I work in shipping not criminal law etc - I can see no way that understanding that a third party lottery system is flawed and leveraging that could be criminal; it goes against pretty much the entirity of the system that your nation runs upon. If one was involved in the lottery then different matter entirely, if there is more than spotting a weakness in the system different again, if you contravene other state laws in the process ... Casinos can refuse your custom, even send the boys out with you to encourage you not to return, put your name and photo on circulars etc - but I do not believe that counting cards is illegal anywhere (although carrying a computer to do so may be illegal) You are almost certainly playing illegally as there is a rule that you must be over 18.

There is something amiss. I am, or we are, introducing a methodological error somewhere and I don't know enough to be aware of it. Oh Capt My Capt - if you are around a little prod in the right direction would be great. The Beloved Leader (All Hail) is a Statisitics guru and could explain what I am doing wrong and why NIST don't list chi-squared in their testing suite for randomness; unfo he is spending far too much time writing books and theses about statistics

! Moderator Note Numerology Hijack hidden . LaurieAG never introduce crap like that into a mainstream forum when a member has asked a straightforward question. You have been warned. Do not respond to this moderation within the thread

! Moderator Note You had your chance and you blew it. History may judge us moderators harshly for closing down a thread of true insight or it might not. We will take the risk. You do not get to procrastinate and prevaricate when asked to move to the meat of the thread - you did so once too often. The thread was correctly locked and will remain so - you do not have permission to reopen the topic. Please do not open another thread to whine about the moderation. Report messages you feel are unfair. ... and Overtone a sockpuppet of John Cuthber - that's priceless

Yes they are. And here is how NIST tests for randomness of random numbers http://csrc.nist.gov/groups/ST/toolkit/rng/stats_tests.html I am going to bed to try to forestall the desire to start to test

! Moderator Note Moved to speculations. Please provide your new formula which correctly predicts fringe patterns with regards to the slit separation and wavelength of incident light

! Moderator Note Moved to speculations Please give some numerical and graphical examples of what you are claiming

OK Prometheus - you may like to run this check as well on our methodology. I just downloaded 3032 randomly generated numbers between 1-100 from the internet random number generator. via this method I got a set of p values of only 9%, and 46%, and 1% and 98% and 74% etc. It is not a sound method

if you have have done the putting in categories correctly (and I presume you have) then that result is correct. I do chi squared by hand in excel - and get 141.6807 0.003186 With a huge pinch of salt - that there is only a very very small chance that the numbers are randomly generated. I do not think pearson chi-squared is the best test

Did you not see the post about the negative issues regarding the regolith and associated charged dust particles? Also in the sun things heat up a lot - whilst there is no warming atmosphere so it may seem colder there is no atmosphere to allow heat dissipation in the ways this would happen on earth (ie warm up the air around you which gets replaced by colder air from further away). Engineering on the moon is fraught with difficulty

! Moderator Note Last chance - answer the questions asked in the many posts before or we consider locking down thread. Do not keep make stuff up to counter arguments - there must be a grounding in reality at some point

! Moderator Note Agreed. Moved to Philosophy

Just to be clear - zero-g is probably just as good a name as micro-gravity; Gravity in the circumstances referred to is neither zero nor even much diminished - it is the reactive force from the ground which is missing. Those in orbit are in a state of free-fall - which is to say that gravity is the only force acting upon them. This is highly analogous to true zero-g or micro-gravity (ie hugely away from any mass) because their environment is in an exactly similar state of freefall so they appear weightless

The differences (D) are easily calculable of course - there are only 100 outcomes D F(d) 0 10 1 18 2 16 3 14 4 12 5 10 6 8 7 6 8 4 9 2 But I don't have my data This was the penn state lottery but I don't gamble. All the large state and State lotteries are very well checked by some serious statisticians for loopholes and for bias

My data are on my pc at work - so I cannot recheck. There were 1602 data points. I tested against an even distribution - ie sum^00_99 (bucket count - expected count if even distribution)^2 * (expected count if even distribution)^-1 Chi-squared test is a test which allows you to test a group of observations and see how well they fit a theoretical distribution. In this case the theoretical distribution is an even (ie all the same) distribution resulting from true randomness (although we know that would almost never be the case). The figure we both quoted is basically the sum of the square of the differences between expected count and observed count (which is normalized by dividing by the expected count before summing) The degrees of freedom is a statistical term which has lots of meanings - in chi-squared it means the number of categories minus 1. The chi-squared figure and the degrees of freedom will give you (via a look up table or a function) a probability that the observed data and the theoretical data could both come from the same single data set I also checked singly ie first number against buckets from 0-9 and second number against buckets from 0-9. The second number was down in the 40% range - which is not enough to void the null but still damn worrying for a lottery. On monday I shall see if I can manage a minimum difference survey (followed by chi-squared) - that is the normal way to check the legitimacy of lottery draws. On a 6-49 lottery there is a 49% chance of a difference of one between two of the numbers, there are known chances for the other differences as well. You run a minimum difference for each set of 6 numbers and then pearson chi-squared the results of difference =1, =2, =3 etc. But I would first have to monte carlo / calculates analytically a set of probabilities for each of the differences for 2 draws from 10

I get a chi-squared of 77 which with 99 degrees of freedom is well within accepted chance of being drawn from the same distribution (ie random)

zztop has been banned as a suckpoppet of xyzt

! Moderator Note Oh Dear - That means you are xyzt and I claim my five pounds And I am pretty sure we banned xyzt for being an insufferable oik who was rude and abusive (check), downvoted those who dared to disagree (check), whined about being neg-repped which we though was hypocrictical then too (check) had good maths and great latex (check), a great ability with relativity (check), but big holes in his understanding about which he would rabidly attack anyone when they were pointed out (check), and the complete absence of humility when he misspoke and was called on it (final check). Account suspended pending mod-review

Surely you also need a particle at high speed (greater than phase speed of light in the material) for Cherenkov - it is basically a shckwave in the electromagnetic field within the material and if the driver particle is moving greater than the local speed of light you get a coherent result

the Euro original was called Jeux Sans Frontières it was rebranded as It's a Knockout for xenophobic and overly competitive Blighty And cos you cannae have enough ...

Sorry but when I read your question all I could think of was "is that when you really really take the piss?" I'll get my coat...

We have received a number of reports regarding "unfair" use of negative reputation and claims of persecution. Without zeroing in on any one member's moan, can we make a few points clear? We, the moderating staff, can see who has given reputation points (both positive or negative), inter alia, this means : Complaining about small-minded people giving negative reputation points whilst doling out far more red downvotes yourself is both hypocritical and we know you are doing it. Unsurprisingly, we are not going to get involved. Regular and consistent up- or down-voting of one member by one other member will lead to suspicion. We have been in the position of needing to remove the ability of members to down-vote to keep the forum harmonious. We really do not want to do this. On the whole the reputation system is self-governing and self-balancing. For example I give far more green up-votes to balance (what I believe to be) unfair red down-votes than I give for pure quality of post. It doesn't take long to understand who likes/dislikes your work and why, even without the mod sneak-peek, so you tend to reinforce that which is approved of etc. and avoid that which is frowned upon. If you do not wish to modify your posting then so be it - but don't whinge when you get more red than green. We have discussed this ad nauseam and will not be considering any changes to the reputation system unless we feel there is a new groundswell of support for change from our senior members.

They are really just units - very basic units which require few assumptions and a healthy absence of anthropocentrism - but essential just units. SOME of them are about the energy scale when we realise that we have to include everything into our calculations. At the very largest scale of distance we can forget about everything except gravity, when distance is small and mass is smaller we can forget about gravity, etc. But at the planck energy scale we have to take into account quantum mechanics and gravity in one fell swoop and we cannot yet do this. Martin's explanation is pretty damn good but requires careful reading and study - and I am pretty sure he won't answer any questions as I have a horrid feeling that he died (but maybe that was a different Martin with a great ability to explain physics)

Sorry - I was looking at the posted equations rather than the links which I assumed were back up to the posts.

What makes you think I don't understand - I gave the figures for a SMBH and some rough ideas about other forces. The schwarzchild radius is a long way from the most elegant way of calculating it - obviously for a Schild b-hole all you need is the mass (all you ever need). Surface (EH) tides are inversely proportional to the square of the mass - so it is patently clear that as the radius is proportional to the mass then the surface tides will become insignificant for large mass blackholes. I am pretty sure that the exact proof you posted relies on a second order series simplification - but frankly I cannot be bothered to go back and look; it should definitely come with a curly almost equals and a health warning And if we are talking about neg-reps - I only give them out for rudeness and arrogance. I haven't bothered dishing one out for a while - but bombastically making sweeping claims and then backtracking by narrowing the application of those claims is always good to gather red marks from the groundlings