Comments on: The Power of…7 ? http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2007/02/09/the-power-of7/ Random samplings from a universe of ideas. Tue, 14 Feb 2012 12:14:22 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1 By: Anya http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2007/02/09/the-power-of7/comment-page-1/#comment-24730 Anya Mon, 12 Feb 2007 08:56:17 +0000 http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2007/02/09/the-power-of7/#comment-24730 "How do other cultures respond with their lucky/unlucky numbers and different sets of rhyming sound?" kapakapa Below are results of my small poll made in Russia. 7 (2) 11(1) 13(1) 15(1) 17(3) 19(1) “How do other cultures respond with their lucky/unlucky numbers and different sets of rhyming sound?” kapakapa

Below are results of my small poll made in Russia.
7 (2)
11(1)
13(1)
15(1)
17(3)
19(1)

]]> By: beezle http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2007/02/09/the-power-of7/comment-page-1/#comment-24734 beezle Sun, 11 Feb 2007 22:11:33 +0000 http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2007/02/09/the-power-of7/#comment-24734 I mentioned this to a friend who is in PR. His 'explanation' was that people tend towards 17 as being 'not too good' but still good; ie people are viewing the range as if it were the results of a test and wish to 'do well' but still be somewhat 'humble'. I would like to see two further tests: 100-120 and 40-60 or 60-80. In the latter, if there were still a bias towards '17' (57 or 77) his idea might have credence. I mentioned this to a friend who is in PR. His ‘explanation’ was that
people tend towards 17 as being ‘not too good’ but still good; ie people are viewing the range as if it were the results of a test and wish to ‘do well’ but still be somewhat ‘humble’.

I would like to see two further tests: 100-120 and 40-60 or 60-80.
In the latter, if there were still a bias towards ’17′ (57 or 77) his idea
might have credence.

]]> By: H H http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2007/02/09/the-power-of7/comment-page-1/#comment-24735 H H Sun, 11 Feb 2007 18:40:27 +0000 http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2007/02/09/the-power-of7/#comment-24735 ---Andy on Feb 9th, 2007 at 2:36 pm ---Quantum mechanical uncertainty goes beyond a mere lack ---of infinite precision in the initial conditions but is ---inherent. That's my main question, what do you mean by inherent? I'd like to see a rigorous definition of this inherent randomness that you are talking about. And since it seems to be a property that we are claiming physical systems/processes to have, the definition, should allow for certifiability (by this I mean being able to test if the system/process is 'inherently' random by some measurements), else it's unlikely it'll make much sense. —Andy on Feb 9th, 2007 at 2:36 pm

—Quantum mechanical uncertainty goes beyond a mere lack —of infinite precision in the initial conditions but is —inherent.

That’s my main question, what do you mean by inherent? I’d like to see a rigorous definition of this inherent randomness that you are talking about. And since it seems to be a property that we are claiming physical systems/processes to have, the definition, should allow for certifiability (by this I mean being able to test if the system/process is ‘inherently’ random by some measurements), else it’s unlikely it’ll make much sense.

]]> By: Garrett http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2007/02/09/the-power-of7/comment-page-1/#comment-24731 Garrett Sat, 10 Feb 2007 16:14:09 +0000 http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2007/02/09/the-power-of7/#comment-24731 Today's xkcd: http://xkcd.com/c221.html Today’s xkcd:

http://xkcd.com/c221.html

]]> By: PK http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2007/02/09/the-power-of7/comment-page-1/#comment-24732 PK Sat, 10 Feb 2007 15:25:06 +0000 http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2007/02/09/the-power-of7/#comment-24732 Matt, that is a different experiment. Isn't the whole point that we want to know how people perceive <i>numbers</i>? Matt, that is a different experiment. Isn’t the whole point that we want to know how people perceive numbers?

]]> By: Matt http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2007/02/09/the-power-of7/comment-page-1/#comment-24733 Matt Sat, 10 Feb 2007 14:56:15 +0000 http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2007/02/09/the-power-of7/#comment-24733 Why not just have a sheet of paper with twenty identical hashmarks on it and ask people to check the one they felt the best about? It might eliminate some bias. Why not just have a sheet of paper with twenty identical hashmarks on it and ask people to check the one they felt the best about? It might eliminate some bias.

]]> By: Sipior http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2007/02/09/the-power-of7/comment-page-1/#comment-24726 Sipior Sat, 10 Feb 2007 09:49:36 +0000 http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2007/02/09/the-power-of7/#comment-24726 Emphasising kapakapa's point No 2, it would be really interesting to conduct this experiment not only among speakers of different languages, but also among users of different number representations. In other words, is this presumptive predilection based upon how we write the number, how we internally vocalise the number, or how we perceive the number itself? Emphasising kapakapa’s point No 2, it would be really interesting to conduct this experiment not only among speakers of different languages, but also among users of different number representations. In other words, is this presumptive predilection based upon how we write the number, how we internally vocalise the number, or how we perceive the number itself?

]]> By: sbar http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2007/02/09/the-power-of7/comment-page-1/#comment-24714 sbar Sat, 10 Feb 2007 07:03:41 +0000 http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2007/02/09/the-power-of7/#comment-24714 I think Julianne makes a good point. Computers would obviously not favor 17 over other numbers. This points to the human mind not considering all numbers equally random.Our mind most likely perceives prime numbers as more random since they don't evoke any particular pattern. The 3 most chosen numbers 17,13 and 7 are all prime numbers. I think random number for the brain does not equate to: all outcomes are equiprobable but rather to: not showing any pattern. I think Julianne makes a good point. Computers would obviously not favor 17 over other numbers. This points to the human mind not considering all numbers equally random.Our mind most likely perceives prime numbers as more random since they don’t evoke any particular pattern. The 3 most chosen numbers 17,13 and 7 are all prime numbers. I think random number for the brain does not equate to: all outcomes are equiprobable but rather to: not showing any pattern.

]]> By: kapakapa http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2007/02/09/the-power-of7/comment-page-1/#comment-24715 kapakapa Sat, 10 Feb 2007 03:26:00 +0000 http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2007/02/09/the-power-of7/#comment-24715 The results are certainly mysterious in many ways, not just a pronounced affinity to 17 but the lowest frequency of 9 over 1 or 20. Both lucky 7 and sometimes ominous 13 are the second and the third 'random' choices. It would be interesting to compare with different schemes: 1. What if the numbers range from ,for example,4-29 or odd-odd/even-even range other than starting with 1 and ending with multiples of 10? 2. How do other cultures respond with their lucky/unlucky numbers and different sets of rhyming sound? 3. If 17 happens to be the most frequent across cultures, how do you explain it? 4. Which appears consistently higher, odd or even number? Any cultural difference there? 5. Quote: 'Dom hypothesized to me that the "first guess" of an individual can never be considered "true random", and that subsequent guesses become more random and less motivated by deductive reasoning.' If you give them a second and third chances in 10sec./1min...., would the answer be different? Would 17 still stand out as the second and the third choices among those who opted for other numbers initially? Very interesting. The results are certainly mysterious in many ways, not just a pronounced affinity to 17 but the lowest frequency of 9 over 1 or 20. Both lucky 7 and sometimes ominous 13 are the second and the third ‘random’ choices. It would be interesting to compare with different schemes:

1. What if the numbers range from ,for example,4-29 or odd-odd/even-even range other than starting with 1 and ending with multiples of 10?

2. How do other cultures respond with their lucky/unlucky numbers and different sets of rhyming sound?

3. If 17 happens to be the most frequent across cultures, how do you explain it?

4. Which appears consistently higher, odd or even number? Any cultural difference there?

5. Quote: ‘Dom hypothesized to me that the “first guess” of an individual can never be considered “true random”, and that subsequent guesses become more random and less motivated by deductive reasoning.’

If you give them a second and third chances in 10sec./1min…., would the answer be different? Would 17 still stand out as the second and the third choices among those who opted for other numbers initially?

Very interesting.

]]> By: Wizard http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2007/02/09/the-power-of7/comment-page-1/#comment-24716 Wizard Sat, 10 Feb 2007 02:01:38 +0000 http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2007/02/09/the-power-of7/#comment-24716 Oh, no! Introduce worms to can, then aquaint can with tin opener. Also, 9 is one less than the fourth power of two minus six (insert brackets where appropriate (like here)) and is therefore special. Oh, no! Introduce worms to can, then aquaint can with tin opener. Also, 9 is one less than the fourth power of two minus six (insert brackets where appropriate (like here)) and is therefore special.

]]> By: onymous http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2007/02/09/the-power-of7/comment-page-1/#comment-24717 onymous Sat, 10 Feb 2007 00:20:38 +0000 http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2007/02/09/the-power-of7/#comment-24717 Quantum mechanics isn't random: any state evolves determistically in time by the action of the operator e^(iHt). (Wave function collapse? What's that?) Quantum mechanics isn’t random: any state evolves determistically in time by the action of the operator e^(iHt).

(Wave function collapse? What’s that?)

]]> By: Julianne http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2007/02/09/the-power-of7/comment-page-1/#comment-24718 Julianne Fri, 09 Feb 2007 23:32:21 +0000 http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2007/02/09/the-power-of7/#comment-24718 I think one of the issues is that there are certain numbers that you're never going to choose when asked to pick a "random" number. 1, 5, 10, 15, and 20 are definitely out. Even numbers just don't seem as random, so you're left with 3,7,9,11,13,17, and 19. 3 is a "common" number, so doesn't seem as random, and 9's a square, so it's special. 19 and 11 are too close to 10 and 20, so seem less random (guilt by association). This leaves 7, 13, and 17. As you'll notice, the third largest spike is 13. I think one of the issues is that there are certain numbers that you’re never going to choose when asked to pick a “random” number. 1, 5, 10, 15, and 20 are definitely out. Even numbers just don’t seem as random, so you’re left with 3,7,9,11,13,17, and 19. 3 is a “common” number, so doesn’t seem as random, and 9′s a square, so it’s special. 19 and 11 are too close to 10 and 20, so seem less random (guilt by association). This leaves 7, 13, and 17. As you’ll notice, the third largest spike is 13.

]]> By: Haludza http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2007/02/09/the-power-of7/comment-page-1/#comment-24727 Haludza Fri, 09 Feb 2007 22:41:26 +0000 http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2007/02/09/the-power-of7/#comment-24727 Maybe a marginal thing is the 'twenty' in the question putting the 'eh' sound of seven and seventeen into people's heads as they scrabble around for a random number. Would there be a trend if it was a random number between one and 30? Maybe a marginal thing is the ‘twenty’ in the question
putting the ‘eh’ sound of seven and seventeen into people’s heads as they scrabble around for a random number. Would there be a trend if it was a random number between one and 30?

]]> By: absolutely http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2007/02/09/the-power-of7/comment-page-1/#comment-24728 absolutely Fri, 09 Feb 2007 22:30:32 +0000 http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2007/02/09/the-power-of7/#comment-24728 pick a number from 1 to 10 and people pick 7. pick a number from 1 to 20, people think 'ah that;s two groups of ten'. so then they have to decide to pick from the first group of ten or the second. if they flip to the 1st then its 7, if the second then its 17 (7 in the second group). so the real question then is why 7, is it not? 17 is actually irrelevant, though it would be interesting to see if the effect extends up through further powers of 10, eg. 27, 37 etc. pick a number from 1 to 10 and people pick 7. pick a number from 1 to 20, people think ‘ah that;s two groups of ten’. so then they have to decide to pick from the first group of ten or the second. if they flip to the 1st then its 7, if the second then its 17 (7 in the second group). so the real question then is why 7, is it not? 17 is actually irrelevant, though it would be interesting to see if the effect extends up through further powers of 10, eg. 27, 37 etc.

]]> By: CharlesT http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2007/02/09/the-power-of7/comment-page-1/#comment-24729 CharlesT Fri, 09 Feb 2007 22:16:16 +0000 http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2007/02/09/the-power-of7/#comment-24729 I remember reading somewhere (Feynman perhaps?) that in the old days before computers were widely available there were books full of random numbers that you could use for manual calculations. In one of these books, a wag had pasted an erratum with corrections to the random numbers in the book. Made me laugh. I remember reading somewhere (Feynman perhaps?) that in the old days before computers were widely available there were books full of random numbers that you could use for manual calculations. In one of these books, a wag had pasted an erratum with corrections to the random numbers in the book. Made me laugh.

]]> By: John D http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2007/02/09/the-power-of7/comment-page-1/#comment-24721 John D Fri, 09 Feb 2007 19:38:23 +0000 http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2007/02/09/the-power-of7/#comment-24721 Maybe 7 and 17 are most popular because they are really the easiest to write, at least cursively... along with a 1. My wife wants to choose an address for our new house. She says it has to have a 7 in it, preferably more than 1. She complains that our existing address is hard to write - 360. Try it. Much easier to dash off 7's or 1's than any other number. John Maybe 7 and 17 are most popular because they are really the easiest to write, at least cursively… along with a 1. My wife wants to choose an address for our new house. She says it has to have a 7 in it, preferably more than 1. She complains that our existing address is hard to write – 360. Try it. Much easier to dash off 7′s or 1′s than any other number.
John

]]> By: Andy http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2007/02/09/the-power-of7/comment-page-1/#comment-24724 Andy Fri, 09 Feb 2007 19:36:05 +0000 http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2007/02/09/the-power-of7/#comment-24724 Quantum mechanical uncertainty goes beyond a mere lack of infinite precision in the initial conditions but is inherent. Quantum mechanical uncertainty goes beyond a mere lack of infinite precision in the initial conditions but is inherent.

]]> By: H H http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2007/02/09/the-power-of7/comment-page-1/#comment-24722 H H Fri, 09 Feb 2007 19:32:47 +0000 http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2007/02/09/the-power-of7/#comment-24722 I keep hearing the question,Is the world truly random?, again and again, but never figured out what the person expects the answer to be. Do they mean by this that, we can't predict the outcomes of all physical processes? This could be answered by saying that, no - we cannot do that , because we cannot gain all the necessary information about every physical system in the first place - and hence the world is random. But this is like a typical definition of pseudorandomness you see in computer science. For instance, you can see the physical process of measurement as a test for randomness and all that we are asking in this version of the question is to say that the process fools this test. So, this in fact this argues only for `pseudorandomness', and I really can't think of any other conclusion being reachable. So, I'd really like some physicist to tell me what they mean or what they expect in an answer when asking 'Is the world truly random?' I keep hearing the question,Is the world truly random?, again and again, but never figured out what the person expects the answer to be. Do they mean by this that, we can’t predict the outcomes of all physical processes? This could be answered by saying that, no – we cannot do that , because we cannot gain all the necessary information about every physical system in the first place – and hence the world is random. But this is like a typical definition of pseudorandomness you see in computer science. For instance, you can see the physical process of measurement as a test for randomness and all that we are asking in this version of the question is to say that the process fools this test. So, this in fact this argues only for `pseudorandomness’, and I really can’t think of any other conclusion being reachable. So, I’d really like some physicist to tell me what they mean or what they expect in an answer when asking ‘Is the world truly random?’

]]> By: Andy http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2007/02/09/the-power-of7/comment-page-1/#comment-24719 Andy Fri, 09 Feb 2007 19:28:06 +0000 http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2007/02/09/the-power-of7/#comment-24719 Before I really believe the "17 effect", I'd like to see the following far more difficult experiment: Ask M-9 independent groups of "random individuals" the following question: Pick a number between 1 and N, with N=10,11,12, ... , M. I'd like to see M at least 100 or even more. Then what happens? Question being, is the "17 effect" purely an artefact of the arbitrary choice M=20? And what other mysterious "patterns" arise with increasing M? Can it be shown that the least favoured numbers are near 1, M/2 and M? Before I really believe the “17 effect”, I’d like to see the following far more difficult experiment: Ask M-9 independent groups of “random individuals” the following question: Pick a number between 1 and N, with N=10,11,12, … , M. I’d like to see M at least 100 or even more. Then what happens? Question being, is the “17 effect” purely an artefact of the arbitrary choice M=20?

And what other mysterious “patterns” arise with increasing M? Can it be shown that the least favoured numbers are near 1, M/2 and M?

]]> By: Joshua R http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2007/02/09/the-power-of7/comment-page-1/#comment-24720 Joshua R Fri, 09 Feb 2007 19:22:10 +0000 http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2007/02/09/the-power-of7/#comment-24720 wow, stragne, because for what ever inexplicable connections my brain makes, 7 seems to be least random because of its "lucky number" status and 17 seems to be most random. no ryme or reason for this at all that i can think of. wow, stragne, because for what ever inexplicable connections my brain makes, 7 seems to be least random because of its “lucky number” status and 17 seems to be most random. no ryme or reason for this at all that i can think of.

]]>