Cluttering the forum please humor me

[random]

I am in operation of a number predicting competition and need the "time stamp" to prove numbers were not altered several of the competitors have shown an uncanny ability to predict numbers with extraordinary accuracy. I Imagine as science buffs the majority of you would shrug off such as nonsense and coincidence and nothing extraordinary Where as I personally believe there is more about the human mind and body we don't understand than there is that we know. So please allow me to see if these competitors can consistently anticipate a mechanical (or true) RNG thank you. 30 26 14 17 19 24 3 2 4 15 30 18 23 28 34 1 33 25 16 22 28 35 15 25 3 1 31 17 26 33 5 15 15 15 4 3 30 10 4 4 21 4 27 27 16 7 11 24 29 30 35 3 22 5 14 25 32 15 17 5 1 26 2 29 13 22 27 13 3 29 27 30 22 5 10 20 3 24 9 19 15 25 1 1 4 9 8 12 19 24 11 32 2 27 19 36 0 9 5 18 26 28 24 9 34 5 26 2 19 34 26 10 18 2 14 17 25 10 0 16 10 31 10 11 23 19 23 27 10 29 8 4 4 33 13 17 6 24 9 26 17 26 9 0 1 4 4 36 9 21 21 13 34 16 17 4 27 28 15 29 10 3 36 8 34 23 33 14 3 5 23 33

[timo]

Can't they just Google for your number sequence ?

[DJBruce]

Are you suggesting that human being can predict a number generated from a random number generator?

[random]

No they can't just google my number sequence to do that they would need to know where this forum is my real identity etc. And yes I am suggesting (and opening myself up to criticism from B/W no gray area thinkers) That people can use intuition to correctly predict these numbers with a very high degree of accuracy. The test is in it's preliminary stages but so far they seem promising. It's one of those things that will alway's be shrugged off by science as coincidence no matter the results ..........I understand that But as I posted earlier I believe there is so much more we don't understand than we already know.

 

Eventually science will be able to explain these things but until then it's a ridiculous notion for the science community. On par with creationism and perpetual motion. Let's leave this thread rather than create a great debate and mountless streams of ridicule for me and instead please look for my theory on Hyper Adaptive Evolution within the next several day's. My attempt to explain creationism and evolution as 1 and the same........both correct yet both rejecting the other.

 

That will leave me wide open to criticism

[timo]

I'm not sure if you got my point - but I am not sure what you are testing. If you say "guess the next number in the random sequence 30 26 14 17 19 24" then people can Google for "30 26 14 17 19 24" and get -at least in my case- exactly one hit: this thread.

Edited August 18, 2010 by timo

[PhDwannabe]

That will leave me wide open to criticism

 

There's already a few successful predictions floating around this thread.

[random]

I'm not sure if you got my point - but I am not sure what you are testing. If you say "guess the next number in the random sequence 30 26 14 17 19 24" then people can Google for "30 26 14 17 19 24" and get -at least in my case- exactly one hit: this thread.

 

 

Phew! you had me worried there for a second but I did the google thing and got 19 250 000 000 results. That was google Canada that I used. I think I am going to pass on the posting of my theory on Hyper Adaptive Evolution because I feel it will only fall on deaf ears. I believe there will be little in the way of constructive criticism and therefore a complete waste of time because there will be no advancement by engaging in a endless debate with users not open to persuasion.

 

I think I would much rather engage in a discussion about the possibility of developing an entirely self sufficient transportation ship. I will be posting my idea for this in the appropriate forum. The basics........Using a water source heat pump to power a steam engine with electricity provided by a total encasement of the ship in solar panels. At least I will learn somthing from others more knowledgeable in this area.

[PhDwannabe]

Random, try Googling "29 27 30 22 5 10 20 3 24 9 19 15 25 1 1 4 9 8 12"

 

Put it within quotation marks, just like I did.

 

 

And on another issue, please do post your theory of Hyper Adaptive Evolution. So what if it falls on deaf ears? It's your theory--doesn't attempting to defend it against somebody who doesn't understand it make it and you stronger? The worst that can happen is somebody changes your mind about something--and that's not a bad thing.

[random]

that one did bring me here. we'll just hope nobody tries that.

[Sisyphus]

It's the first thing I would try. You should probably start over and find some way to timestamp them that isn't easily searchable. If you want, you can private message me a new sequence.

 

What kind of random number generator are you using, if you don't mind me asking?

[Klaynos]

The first google that was suggested (the short one) when in quotes gave only one result, this site.

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

You could post the SHA-1 hash of your sequence somewhere, so people know you had the exact sequence but they don't know what it is.

[random]

No they really don't know it's here I'm sure of that. Like they say somtimes the best place to hide somthing is in plain sight. Just don't tell anyone where you hid it. And it will be funny for them to find out in the end how easily they could have cheated. "the simplest solution can often prove to be the most difficult"

[padren]

No they really don't know it's here I'm sure of that. Like they say somtimes the best place to hide somthing is in plain sight. Just don't tell anyone where you hid it. And it will be funny for them to find out in the end how easily they could have cheated. "the simplest solution can often prove to be the most difficult"

 

It does leave that possibility open though, so you can't really say for sure whether your results are accurate. For the record, while I am suspect of being able to intuit most complex pseudo-random number patterns, it is a known fact that we can do complex calculations without being aware of it. I recall some NPR show talking about how kids learn to catch baseballs - saying that the techniques implied the use of much more complex math than the child was aware of. I've played a bit with using intuition as a math aid to a degree... really minor stuff but basically being able to skip steps by trusting the number that pops up in my head and then later verifying it. I've had some success, though I've also found it's always good to double check.

 

Secondarily, if it wasn't for the fact this thread already pops up in a google search, in the future you could post an image containing the numbers. That way there is no text to match. It's not perfect, as you may use language to describe the experiment that you hadn't thought of.

 

 

Lastly, if you want really decent results, you should test in a controlled environment using a sampling of participants that aren't aware they are signing up specifically for a math experiment. It never really matters if your premise is outlandish or not- all that matters is how robustly you test your premise and that you only draw suggested conclusions within the scope of the accumulated data.

[timo]

No they really don't know it's here I'm sure of that. Like they say somtimes the best place to hide something is in plain sight. Just don't tell anyone where you hid it. And it will be funny for them to find out in the end how easily they could have cheated. "the simplest solution can often prove to be the most difficult"

That reminds me of a Terry Pratchett book where the heroes try to worsen their chances to kill the dragon because if it's "one in a million" then it must succeed, whereas no one ever heard of "one in five-hundred" to work.

[Sisyphus]

No they really don't know it's here I'm sure of that. Like they say somtimes the best place to hide somthing is in plain sight. Just don't tell anyone where you hid it. And it will be funny for them to find out in the end how easily they could have cheated. "the simplest solution can often prove to be the most difficult"

 

Why are you sure of that?

 

If somebody does well, don't you think the most likely explanation will be that they cheated, since it is so easy to do so?

[Marat]

Dr. Rhine's psychology lab at Duke University tested those sorts of psychic abilities more than 40 years ago. What was found was that people who reported having psychic abilities could more accurately guess the outcome of random number draws than those who did not. However, after repeated testing, the psychic abilities of those uniquely talented individuals attenuated until they were eventually guessing the right number less often than purely random guessing would have. So over time, no net psychic abilities were demonstrated, although over short intervals there seemed to be clear evidence of special intuitive capacities.

 

What mechanism underlies those results is difficult to image.

[Sisyphus]

What mechanism underlies those results is difficult to image.

 

To the contrary, I find it very easy to imagine cheating test subjects and selection bias in results.

[PhDwannabe]

Dr. Rhine's psychology lab at Duke University tested those sorts of psychic abilities more than 40 years ago. What was found was that people who reported having psychic abilities could more accurately guess the outcome of random number draws than those who did not. However, after repeated testing, the psychic abilities of those uniquely talented individuals attenuated until they were eventually guessing the right number less often than purely random guessing would have. So over time, no net psychic abilities were demonstrated, although over short intervals there seemed to be clear evidence of special intuitive capacities.

 

What mechanism underlies those results is difficult to image.

 

It's not really difficult to imagine. Picture a thousand people flipping coins ten times. Some of those people are going to exceed what would look like chance--by chance. Several people are going to flip 8 or 9 heads. Keep testing them, however, and they'll generally "regress to the mean." Often, even dip below what would be mean performance. It's not terribly complicated stats.

 

Additionally, this:

 

To the contrary, I find it very easy to imagine cheating test subjects and selection bias in results.

 

is to be expected as well.