heh, if you have a Library card, you can go to the public Library and check out a 1st grade or 2nd grade Math Book that will help you get started on working with groups of things..
A first grade math book has much more depth than what you are working with here. Simply taking 2 balls labeled with different numbers and observing when they show up together in a random sequence has absolutely nothing to do with mathematics. The only thing close to mathematics about these ideas is the fact that with randomness nothing is guaranteed to happen ever, which contradicts your statements in this thread.
Fja..do you know anything about numbers..anything at all..and I am not trying to be mean here..do you know how to find anything missing..pairs..digits..doubles..those same ones locked to a certain position..because if you dont know how to do that then I dont know what to tell you..because this is the way it works..
Again I don't see what one would have to "know about numbers" to observe with their eyes which balls are labeled with which numbers. "The way it works" is that the lottery is a random game, which guarantees no certain outcome over any period of time. Some outcomes are likely to happen over a large enough period, but nothing is guaranteed.
IT CHANGES THE FUTURE...MORE PRECISELY..it changes randoms future..
For you to prove something changes the "future of random" you would have to prove how "the future of random" would have acted without the act that "changed the future of random". I don't see that proof (a proof one that is fact, not opinion) anywhere. Saying "The pairs HAVE to show" is not a proof, since random is easily proved to have no guarantees.
I just figured since it is so visible to me that everyone would see the samething
It's a matter of opinion, so not everyone is going to have the same take on the matter.
then you have no IDEA IN THIS world that what you were looking for has aready shown..and that is what it is designed for
Assuming you are talking about the pre-tests here, screwing players is not what they are designed for. Your opinion is that they are designed to screw the players, but it is obvious that while it may be doing that (based on your opinion), it DOES suffice as a testing method for the machines so the lottery can ensure each draw will be professional and random.
the next time random will most likely give you 158..or some other variation
Actually all 'variations' are equally likely each time. That is the nature of random, not that one draw becomes less likely because it has already happened.
if you find something missing in those paying draws..they want it to show in those pretest draws to hide it and change
If the lottery was using pre-test draws to cover all of the situations that have not shown yet, it would take many more than the few test draws they actually run. Why do they not pre-test 100 times until something shows that has not, if this was their ulterior motive? How would they know how many draws back to look? What if players were playing situations that haven't appeared in the past 50 draws and they were assuming everyone would play situations that have not happened in the past 100 and they missed some in their pre-draws because that combo happened 75 draws ago so they figured they did not need to pre-test until it appeared! (little sarcasm there).
It seems like this whole idea is based upon you perception of 'randomness', more specifically that randomness guarantees combinations will all show at some point. Since the actual definition of randomness conflicts with yours, I don't really think you should be running around telling other people they don't understand what you are saying because their mathematical knowledge is not at a high enough level. That just makes no sense, since no mathematics are even used in this theory.
At any rate, if you are seriously going to try and change things the best method would be to come up with an alternative solution [for assuring the machines are working properly]. Simply pointing out "flaws" like these are not going to change things unless you have a strong case that your solution is better than the one currently in production.