[math-fun] random number generator circuit diagram
I actually drew a circuit diagram, based on my old idea: https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/3507527/OpAmpChaos2.png -- Warren D. Smith http://RangeVoting.org <-- add your endorsement (by clicking "endorse" as 1st step)
--argh, seems circuit erroneous, need to redraw some stuff... sorry... On 4/2/16, Warren D Smith <warren.wds@gmail.com> wrote:
I actually drew a circuit diagram, based on my old idea:
-- Warren D. Smith http://RangeVoting.org <-- add your endorsement (by clicking "endorse" as 1st step)
Hello, in today lottery systems, they use 2 processes. The first one is a mathematical formula to generate the numbers and to be certain there is no possibility that someone would find the formula and would be able to predict the next lottery numbers : the machines are equipped with a special chip which is a physical resistance or basic circuit just to produce noise, all the chip are identical BUT the signal output is directly linked to the physical chip itself, in other words 2 identical chips won't generate the exact same signal at all, this is made on purpose. Then, they just plug one generator after the other, like that nobody on this planet can reproduce the exact same sequence. in human terms : it is random. ps : I use to work for Loto-Québec. ps 2: It did happen historically that a person had some information about the mathematical process on one particular lottery and was able to predict the next numbers. At the time they were using only one process, a mathematical formula, according to what I know, it was stupidly based on the inverses of primes and the decimal expansion, the person that used the formula and made some money was in fact more or less in contact with some people inside the company that was producing the numbers, an inside job. It went to court eventually but the man was able to more or less acquitted since they had no proof. They later changed the system and avoided that company of course. Best regards, Simon plouffe
Simon, which countries' lotteries are you referring to? By contrast, in the U.S. the current trend is to use a physical device that consists of a transparent globe holding one ping-pong ball for each possible single number (like 0 through let's say 59). There are usually 6 numbers, hence 60_C_6 = 10x59x58x57x56x55, so one play's chance of winning the top prize is a bit less than 1 out of 6 billion. (Ignoring the issue of sharing the prize with whoever else picked the same numbers.) Then on TV, the globe is stirred and then spits out (through air pressure) one ball after the other, so that all viewers can see the process. —Dan
On Apr 2, 2016, at 5:47 PM, Simon Plouffe <simon.plouffe@gmail.com> wrote:
Hello,
in today lottery systems, they use 2 processes. The first one is a mathematical formula to generate the numbers and to be certain there is no possibility that someone would find the formula and would be able to predict the next lottery numbers : the machines are equipped with a special chip which is a physical resistance or basic circuit just to produce noise, all the chip are identical BUT the signal output is directly linked to the physical chip itself, in other words 2 identical chips won't generate the exact same signal at all, this is made on purpose. Then, they just plug one generator after the other, like that nobody on this planet can reproduce the exact same sequence. in human terms : it is random.
ps : I use to work for Loto-Québec. ps 2: It did happen historically that a person had some information about the mathematical process on one particular lottery and was able to predict the next numbers. At the time they were using only one process, a mathematical formula, according to what I know, it was stupidly based on the inverses of primes and the decimal expansion, the person that used the formula and made some money was in fact more or less in contact with some people inside the company that was producing the numbers, an inside job. It went to court eventually but the man was able to more or less acquitted since they had no proof. They later changed the system and avoided that company of course.
That Notices article "Fingerprint Databases for Theorems" online at https://www.math.washington.edu/~billey/papers/fingerprints.pdf <https://www.math.washington.edu/~billey/papers/fingerprints.pdf> mentioned by Jim refers to "equivalent theorems" — as mathematicians often do. (It uses a few trig identities that can be derived from each other.) I "know" what this means in an informal sense — that it's not hard to derive each theorem from the other. But does this *really* mean anything in a formal sense? Because at least in one formal sense, *all* provable theorems in a logical system are equivalent. —Dan
Hello, the countries : Canada, USA and France. those show they do on tv with balls in a sphere is just a show, they do that for some lotteries it is true. I am talking about the rest of the products. You know these tickets you can buy to scratch ? they are made the same way in Canada and France, same look, same type of marketing, even the names are the same. The story I was talking about is : http://princeducasino.com/fr/nouvelles/details/la-petite-histoire-de-daniel-... the guy is Daniel Corriveau, he found the 'sequence' , won 600000 dollars with it and they could not prove he cheated, it went to court but nothing else happened. Here is an english version : http://www.blackjackforumonline.com/content/how_to_beat_keno.htm best regards et bonne journée. Simon Plouffe
Same in the UK for the National Lottery. For the Premium Bonds, we've used ERNIE (Electronic Random Number Indicator Equipment) since 1956: http://www.nsandi.com/ernie Best wishes, Adam P. Goucher
Sent: Sunday, April 03, 2016 at 2:27 AM From: "Dan Asimov" <asimov@msri.org> To: math-fun <math-fun@mailman.xmission.com> Subject: Re: [math-fun] random number generator circuit diagram
Simon, which countries' lotteries are you referring to?
By contrast, in the U.S. the current trend is to use a physical device that consists of a transparent globe holding one ping-pong ball for each possible single number (like 0 through let's say 59). There are usually 6 numbers, hence 60_C_6 = 10x59x58x57x56x55, so one play's chance of winning the top prize is a bit less than 1 out of 6 billion. (Ignoring the issue of sharing the prize with whoever else picked the same numbers.)
Then on TV, the globe is stirred and then spits out (through air pressure) one ball after the other, so that all viewers can see the process.
—Dan
On Apr 2, 2016, at 5:47 PM, Simon Plouffe <simon.plouffe@gmail.com> wrote:
Hello,
in today lottery systems, they use 2 processes. The first one is a mathematical formula to generate the numbers and to be certain there is no possibility that someone would find the formula and would be able to predict the next lottery numbers : the machines are equipped with a special chip which is a physical resistance or basic circuit just to produce noise, all the chip are identical BUT the signal output is directly linked to the physical chip itself, in other words 2 identical chips won't generate the exact same signal at all, this is made on purpose. Then, they just plug one generator after the other, like that nobody on this planet can reproduce the exact same sequence. in human terms : it is random.
ps : I use to work for Loto-Québec. ps 2: It did happen historically that a person had some information about the mathematical process on one particular lottery and was able to predict the next numbers. At the time they were using only one process, a mathematical formula, according to what I know, it was stupidly based on the inverses of primes and the decimal expansion, the person that used the formula and made some money was in fact more or less in contact with some people inside the company that was producing the numbers, an inside job. It went to court eventually but the man was able to more or less acquitted since they had no proof. They later changed the system and avoided that company of course.
_______________________________________________ math-fun mailing list math-fun@mailman.xmission.com https://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/math-fun
participants (4)
-
Adam P. Goucher -
Dan Asimov -
Simon Plouffe -
Warren D Smith