Comments on: 69% of statistics are not made up on the spot. But they might as well be.

by: billbob

Sat, 01 Mar 2008 19:06:51 +0000

Looks like Nick needs do over on his math class. He said ““it [is] less likely that a sequence of consecutive numbers would come up than any other sequence of numbers�?is in fact true.” This statement is in fact FALSE. When he said “any other sequence of numbers”, that means, for instance, to compare the odds of 1-2-3-4-5-6 and 3-6-9-12-15-18 winning. Do the math buddy, the odds of either set of numbers winning is the same. Likewise, compare the sequence 1-2-3-4-5-6 to the sequence 45-12-9-25-31-8 (random sequence but a specific set). Odds again are the same. Now had you said “it [is] less likely that a sequence of consecutive numbers would come up vs a sequence of nonconsecutive numbers”, that statement would be true. Dah…

by: artemis

Fri, 25 Jan 2008 17:18:20 +0000

>So, by that reasoning, the statement:
>“it [is] less likely that a sequence of consecutive numbers would come up >than any other sequence of numbers�?

This is basically exactly the same as saying “It is less likely that this list of sets of randomly chosen numbers will come up, than that any of the other sets will come up”. Technically true, because one set is smaller than the other, but completely irrelevent. The only reason consecutive numbers are viewed as less likely is because there are not as many sets of them.

by: Nick

Mon, 25 Dec 2006 21:41:34 +0000

Whilst it is true that getting a specific set of consecutive numbers is equally likely to getting any other specific set of numbers, the probability of getting a remarkable set (for example consecutive numbers) is much less likely than getting a set of “meaningless” numbers (for example, a set of numbers with no obvious relation to each other). In this way, it is very unlikely for the lottery draw to produce all consecutive numbers. That is not saying that you shouldn’t pick consecutive numbers (of course any set of numbers is equally likely), just that if we compare the set which contains all possibilities of seven consecutive numbers to the set of all other combinations (without loss of generality, we can ignore permutations [different ways of arranging the same sequence of numbers]), we can see the order (size) of the “set of consecutives” is a lot smaller than the order of the other set.

So, by that reasoning, the statement:
“it [is] less likely that a sequence of consecutive numbers would come up than any other sequence of numbers”
is in fact true. It does not, however, increase your chances of winning by picking non-consecutive numbers.

by: ArchDukeFranz

Tue, 27 Jun 2006 12:11:05 +0000

As a Christian I find this “what are the odds” crap rather irritating for the following reasons:

1. We are not aware of all the of possibilities therefor probability theory doesn’t work in this case.

2. Retrospectively the way any 5 player poker game had its cards dealt out was improbable. So if thats your standards for a miracle????

3. It is similar to flipping a coin a million times and counting the number of heads and tails you have gotten… whats that, you got an almost equal amount of both? Well thats amazing!
Evolution was going to happen, life isn’t random, it was going to happen.

by: Bruce

Tue, 31 Jan 2006 14:30:04 +0000

Just as an asside to Steve’s post, it reminds me of the dilbert cartoon mikael used to have pinned to his door in the CSIS building when the IDC was there. The company’s random number generator was a guy/creature standing in the corner going “9″, “9″, “9″ repeatedly. When asked about it they came up with the exact same point as Steve has just made. :-)

by: Michelle

Wed, 25 Jan 2006 20:28:59 +0000

I don’t know what I’d do without your little rants, they never fail to make me smile!

Also, I’ll remember never to try and calm you down with comforting stats in future :)

by: diamond

Wed, 25 Jan 2006 17:31:24 +0000

re: flipping coin coming up 100 times heads, indeed. It makes you wonder how you prove that a random number generator is… random. I suspect it’s not actually provable, given that theres no reason it couldn’t produce 1 -> 100000 sequentially, etc, it’s just unlikely.

Steve

by: Darragh

Wed, 25 Jan 2006 16:20:25 +0000

True, but it can be great fun winding them up about their ’statistics’ when you tell them that events aren’t related.

Though I could refer you to Dewy’s lucky sweater in Malcom in the middle, I dunno, that sweater was a pretty good argument on the side of luck, and made a fool of the oh-so-logical Malcom. But then again, thats an entertaing TV show, and not reality.