Mathematicians have a simple way to increase the odds of winning the jackpot. Another thing is that it compensates

By more than try Abel Caballero, the beginning of Christmas (at least in Spain) is not marked by the lighting of the lights of Vigo, but by a much more consolidated tradition: the raffle of the Christmas Lottery. Every December 22, thousands of Spaniards tune in to TV, radio or press the ‘F5’ key on their computers every so often in the hope that the children of San Idelfonso sing your number. However, the probability of this happening is very low, as much as choosing a name at random from the census of a city and getting it right. The question is… Are there ways to expand that probability? 1 in 100,000. The Christmas Lottery generates excitement and makes thousands of Spaniards get out of bed on December 22 with a special tingle: the hope of seeing how their bank accounts suddenly add a handful more zeros. That is undeniable. Just as it is that, if we leave aside the illusion, the chances of our tenth(s) winning are very small. Lower case. The data speaks for itself and leaves little room for hope: in the hype 100,000 balls enter with numbers from 00000 to 99,999. Your number has the same exit options as the other 99,999, one 0.001% probability. Mathematics VS hope. “In these cases the probability is easy to calculate. Since all numbers are equally probable (there is a ball for each number), it would be calculated with Laplace’s rule: the number of favorable cases divided by the number of possible cases,” comments Miguel Ángel Morales, mathematician and author of the blog Gaussians for almost two decades. “Assuming that we have only one tenth, the probability of winning El Gordo would be 1 (there is only one Gordo) in 100,000 (since there are 100,000 numbers that enter the draw). That is, a probability of 0.00001.” What does that mean? Since talking about drums, tenths and statistics can be too abstract, Morales transfers the figures to something we are much more accustomed to: people. In this case we would exchange the tenths for cards and the drums for the municipal registry of a medium-sized city. “Let’s imagine that we have a DNI of someone from Santiago de Compostela and a list with the names of all its inhabitants (about 1,000,000),” reflects the professor. “The probability would be similar to the one we have of choosing one of those names at random and turning out to be the person with the DNI that we had at the beginning.” “If we talk about the total number of prizes, the way to calculate the probability would be the same: we would have to change the 1 (a single Gordo) for the number of prizes. Sticking to the main prizes, as there is a First, a Second, a Third, two Fourths and eight Fifths, the probability of getting a main prize with a single tenth would be 13 divided by 100000, 0.00013.” The big question. There is no Christmas without its Lottery and there is no draw in which it is not considered the same question: Do we have any way to increase our chances of success, however slim they may be? Is there any way to scratch a little more probability, even a few tenths? The answer is yes. And not. The starting data is what it is, but precisely for this reason our chances of being happy on the morning of December 22 increase as the number of different tenths that we have in our portfolio increases. More options? More tenths? “The only way to increase the probabilities is, effectively, to buy more tenths of different numbers,” confirms Morales. “If we have five of different numbers, the probability of winning the jackpot would be 5 in 100,000, which is 0.00005. There are no more mathematical ways to increase the probability of winning a prize.” That is, if what you want is to “maximize” your chances of success, you will have no choice but to put more eggs in the basket. Having more bills of the same number (even if you have a hunch) will only help you win more money in case that combination wins, it does not increase your options. “Speaking of refund, the probability would be one in ten if we have a single tenth. Obviously, buying more tenths with different endings would help us have a greater probability of getting that refund,” he adds. And Doña Manolita or the ‘tricks’? The Christmas Lottery is not only peculiar because of the Gordo, the stones and its symbolic value. It is also because in it statistics and pure hunch go hand in hand (just like in other games of chance). Hence there are people willing to endure long lines outside to buy a tenth at Doña Manolita or to always play the same number, perhaps a special number that coincides with your birthday or the date your child was born. Works? Do these ‘tricks’ improve our chances? Morales is very clear about whether the latter (repeating a number year after year) influences our fortunes: “No, it does not increase it. All draws are independent, which means that what comes out in a draw does not depend on what happened in the previous ones. They have no memory. Mathematically speaking, always playing the same number does not increase the probability of winning.” The administrations of “luck”. There is also no difference between buying a tenth at the corner fruit shop or doing it in administrations so famous like Doña Manolita, The Bruixa d’OrLotería Valdés or El Gato Negro. Manuel García, an expert in Statistics at the European University, was also very clear about this a few days ago in an interview with the diary ACE. “They give out more prizes because they sell more numbers, not because they are luckier. It’s a self-fulfilling prophecy effect. It’s very important because since it has that reputation (I don’t know how it originates) people usually go there to buy. They are the ones that … Read more

Mathematicians have been trying to solve the mystery of Da Vinci’s ‘vitruvio’. The answer was in sight

The history of art is full of universal icons, but few, very few, reach the popularity level of the ‘Vitruvio man’ drawn around 1490 by Leonardo da Vinci. And it is logical. Artistic and scientific issues apart, the work has become a reference Pop. The original is preserved in the Accademia di Belle Arti Venice, but the same face, the same body, has stamped over the last decades in books, t -shirts, sweatshirts, backpacks and posters. That without counting every time we have seen it reproduced on the big screen. The most curious thing is that despite that exhibition, the ‘man of vitruvio’ is still surrounded by mysteries. Or so it was until now, at least. A London dentist believes having solved the complex mathematical puzzle that Leonardo hidden in the work. A name: Marcus Vitruvius. Leonardo da Vinci’s is (by far) the most famous, but the Tuscan genius was not the only one in representing the man of vitruvio. We keep more or less similar samples from other artists, such as Francesco Di Giorgio Martini either Giacomo Andrea de Ferrara. And it’s normal. After all, these are exercises based on the canon of the human body of Marcus Vitruvius (Exactly, hence his name), a Roman architect and engineer. It was he who many centuries before Leonardo theorized about human physiognomy in Of archiecture. “In the body, the central point is the navel. If a man placed himself on his back, with extended hands and feet and a compass focused on the nave The architect theorized Roman in the first century before our era, convinced that a man’s proportions can adjust to a square. But … how to do it? That is the theory. Different thing is practice. Throughout the different artists have launched themselves to represent human physiognomy partially inspired by the canon of proportions proposed by vitrubio. Not everyone with equal fortune. By 1490 Leonardo Da Vinci, who then was around 40, got down to work in one of his notebooks and prepared a drawing that during the last five centuries has fascinated scholars and profane. The work shows a man in several overlapping positions, standing, with extended legs and more or less open arms. All perfectly registered in a square and in a circle in an exercise that would probably have fascinated the Roman architect. We have recorded the result in memory and a quick search arrives on Google to find good quality reproductions, but there is a pending mystery: how the hell did Leonardo did? The great ask unknown. Yes, the result is obvious. And yes, the drawing is there for those who want to copy it in detail. But … what recipe Did Vinci continue to plan and execute it? What calculations did you use? Was it based on any pattern? And if so, what system did you employ? “The search for the Da Vinci geometric method has generated numerous theories, each of which tries to explain the measured relationship between the circle and the square in the original drawing,” Explain Rory Mac Sweeney, the British dentist who believes he has found the key. “For more than 500 years, the Da Vinci geometric system for the precise relationship between the circle and the square in his drawing of the ‘Vitruvio man’ has remained in the mystery,” Mac Sweeney abounds, which has just published An article reviewed by parts in Journal of Maythematics and Arts. What if the key is the golden proportion? His theory is just that, a theory, but it is interesting because it offers an alternative to the most popular explanation, which argues that to draw his drawing Da Vinci was inspired by the Aurea proportionan idea that reinforces the collaboration of the Tuscan with his compatriot Luca Paciolithe author of Of divine proportion. The problem, Remember Mac Sweeneyis that this explanation has not just been perfect. “It produces a significant error, which seems unlikely given Leonardo’s geometric precision.” Good riddle, bad explanation. Other authors have provided alternative explanations to the mystery of Vitruvio, such as Leonardo was based on octagons or a heptagon, but Mac Sweeney believes all these theories present “a fundamental problem”: they approach more or less the measures used by the artist in his diagram, but in the opinion of the British researcher it is difficult to connect them with the themes that really obsessed Da Vinci. “They are still purely abstract mathematical exercises, without connection with Leonardo da Vinci’s documented interest in human anatomy, natural functional and main relationships. As geometric riddles, they work. As explanations of Leonardo’s methodology and intentions, they do not offer a convincing justification of their specific decisions,” Reflect. Hidden “with the naked eye”. The most curious thing is that Mac Sweeney believes that the solution “has been hidden with the naked eye” in the handwritten annotations left by Leonardo himself next to the drawing. Specifically, it refers to a comment in which the artist points out that, with the body in a certain posture, the space between the legs forms an equilateral triangle. For a long time it was believed that this phrase was a simple poetic ornament, pure rhetoric or a practical guide for composition, but the British expert believes that it is the key to mystery. And what is special? That the triangle adjusts to a natural pattern, one that Mac Sweeney knows well for his dentist profession: Bonwill’s trianglean imaginary equilateral triangle of the human anatomy that marks the fundamental geometric relationship for the proper functioning of the jaw. “Connects the mandibular condyles with the midpoint of the lower central incisors and corresponds precisely to Leonardo’s explicit reference to an ‘equilateral triangle’ in its construction of the ‘vitruvio man’”, Clarify. “The construction of Leonardo demonstrates the same tetrahedral principles present in craniofacial architecture,” insists The British dentist before citing studies and calculations that reinforce its hypothesis. “The equilateral triangle, which Leonardo made explicit reference between the legs of the figure, when replicating six times around the navel, creates the … Read more

Mathematicians needed 300 years to demonstrate Fermat’s last theorem. Computers have not achieved it

“I have found a really admirable demonstration, but the margin of the book is very small to put it.” It is what the 17th -century French mathematician Pierre de Fermat wrote when stating his His “last theorem”. Fermat’s problem took three decades to be found between the mathematician papers and three centuries until that admirable test was discovered. And yet the case is not entirely settled, only that the challenge is something different. Take it to a computer. He New challenge It is to make a computer to try the elusive theorem. That is the objective of a new project, FERMAT FORMALISINGled by Imperial College London. Fermat’s problem. Fermat’s last theorem “postulates that, if A, byc are natural numbers and not equal to zero, the an+bn = cn equation has no solution if n is greater than two. Formally demonstrating something is not as simple as trying it by rehearsal and error, and this demonstration, too complex for the “megish margin” of the Fermat’s notebook would be lost for centuries. The problem was resolved in 1994 by the British Andrew Wiles, who had begun to solve this puzzle with only 10 years. In 2016 Wiles was awarded the ABEL award, the award considered “The Nobel of Mathematics.” Almost one million pounds. Another 30 years after the resolution of the enigma and more than three centuries after the death of Fermat, a team of researchers, led by Kevin Buzzard, of Imperial College London, has put to work to take a different step, teach A computer to solve this problem. The new project It began at the end of 2024 and will last until 2029. It has a financing of just over 934,000 pounds and already begins to give some results, in the form of code fragments that are added to a Database in Github. What remains to be resolved.It can be contraintuitive, but this type of reasoning, which lead us to formally demonstrate mathematical theorems, are difficult to teach computers. Recently, Buzzard and other experts They explained the complexity of the matter to the French newspaper I monde. To begin with, we must take into account that the resolution of this theorem is complex, it is no accident that several generations of mathematics would turn the brains trying to find it. These mathematicians also had previous experience in the field of resolution of these types of problems. As Buzzard explained to the French newspaper, mathematicians have a base that allows them to “jump steps” when explaining the resolution to this problem. A computer, however, must start from scratch when building its own explanation for the matter. And all this, for what? “Fermat’s last theorem (…) has no applications, theoretical or practices, in the real world,” Buzzard pointed out A few months ago to the magazine New Scientist. So why so much effort to teach a computer to solve something we already resolved? The key here is not in the past but in the future. According to Explain the team at the head of the projectcomputers today can be used to attend mathematicians trying to solve problems such as demonstration of theorems, but there is an obstacle to materializing some forms of help. The problem, they point out, is that few mathematicians have focused on working with this software, so there are no tools that have the “definitions” used by mathematicians to solve these problems. Working on this problem should be used to create the necessary databases for solving similar problems in the future. In Xataka | We had more than a century trying to solve some mathematical problems. The AI ​​is starting to unravel Image | Diofanto’s arithmetic / Pierre de Fermat by Rolland Lefebvre

Log In

Forgot password?

Forgot password?

Enter your account data and we will send you a link to reset your password.

Your password reset link appears to be invalid or expired.

Log in

Privacy Policy

Add to Collection

No Collections

Here you'll find all collections you've created before.