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