if you enter multiple sweepstakes changes the probability
Probability to win? Yes, obviously the chance to win gets higher. Probability to win a specific giveaway? No, it's independent from the others.
The probability of winning a specific giveaway is 1/[number of entries in that giveaway].
The probability of winning in a day is 1 - [chance of not winning anything] = 1- ([number of entires in giveaway 1 -1]/[[number of entires in giveaway 1])([number of entires in giveaway 2 -1]/[number of entires in giveaway 2])....([number of entires in giveaway n -1]/[[number of entires in giveaway n]) where n is the number of giveaways you have entered in which end during this day.
Comment has been collapsed.
Well technically it could lower your probability to win, overall. User a joins a private giveaway with 100 entries, his win chance is 1%, he joins another with 200 giveaways, now it drops to .75% overall. Which is what the graph would indicate, I believe. Obviously it would be much more noticeable by joining a giveaway where he was the only entry, 100%, and joining one with 2, 50% = 75% overall.
Comment has been collapsed.
Comment has been collapsed.
I assume it is done mathematical correct, so yes, entering multiple giveaways changes the odds.
If you enter one giveaway and there are 9 users beside you the probability to win is 10%.
If you enter two giveaways with 10% each your chance to win at least one of them is
1-0.9*0.9 = 0.19
or 19%.
With more realistic number: You enter 100 giveaways with 1000 entries each. You chance to win at least one is
1-0.999^100 = 0.095
or 9.5%.
Hope that helps.
Comment has been collapsed.
Math teacher. Enjoyed a class with that stuff this spring.
Comment has been collapsed.
I also teach physics and was in astronomical research for a while :)
Comment has been collapsed.
The world would be boring. Let's start at a star system's size at least.
Comment has been collapsed.
I have not done real QM in 9 (?) years.
My first response would be: In theory sure, why not. But if you think about disintegrating solid bodies that way, I am pretty sure that it is not possible, because solid bodies are "many particle problems", with a superposition of so many wavefunctions (that interact with one another) that they act according to classical physics.
Comment has been collapsed.
Just so Im sure I understand you, you're saying because each atom contains different combinations of particles, you couldnt find the right wave frequency to destabilize them all at the same time? What percentage would you have to destabilize to cause some sort of cascading oscillation, or is that not possible on a subatomic level? If I understood you, and if the second part is even possible. Im sure this seems like a silly line of inquiry from the kid in the back of the class trying to distract you from the lesson, but ever since seeing the tacoma narrows bridge video as a child, I've wondered if people could just 'vibrate' apart given the right circumstances.
Comment has been collapsed.
You can not translate resonance frequency effects like Tacoma bridge into QM (e.g. due to Heisenberg's uncertaincy principle). Manipulation of single particle wavefunction is done, but as soon as you've got too many particles you have to take the system as a whole into acount.
Comment has been collapsed.
I can tell you from multiple experiences with entering multiple giveaways with very low numbers of entrants at the same time, that Oppenh4imer is correct.
I once took part in 5 giveaways with each less than 10 participants, and figured it out; Another time, I was one of the first to solve a rather difficult puzzle event, including being among the first to enter the top prizes, and I watched the way my win probability changed every day as new people entered. More recently, I was one of only two people to enter a particular giveaway, which let me confirm this is how it worked
edit: keep in mind that the graph rounds to whole numbers
Comment has been collapsed.
For each giveaway you enter, the probability of you winning is the number of copies offered divided by the total number of entries. Call this x.
The probability of you NOT winning is 1-x. Call this y.
The probability you will win at least something over some set of giveaways is 1 minus the product of all y for those giveaways.
The expected number of wins over some set of giveaways is the sum of all x for those giveaways.
Notice that if you are definitely going to win a certain giveaway, then x for that giveaway is 1, and y for that giveaway is 0. Thus the product of all y for that day will be 0 and so the probability that you win something that day will still be 100% regardless of the other giveaways you enter.
Also notice that y is always a fraction, always less than 1. Thus, multiplying anything by y will give a LOWER value. So the probability you win at least one thing in a day can only increase by entering more giveaways. Entering a giveaway can never harm your chances.
Comment has been collapsed.
375 Comments - Last post 2 hours ago by AnonymousBroccoli
289 Comments - Last post 3 hours ago by Velandur
47,194 Comments - Last post 4 hours ago by Mhol1071
49 Comments - Last post 5 hours ago by OneManArmyStar
187 Comments - Last post 6 hours ago by JTC3
19 Comments - Last post 7 hours ago by FranEldense
49 Comments - Last post 10 hours ago by RileyHisbert
9,764 Comments - Last post 7 minutes ago by ayuinaba
128 Comments - Last post 12 minutes ago by majar1
28 Comments - Last post 12 minutes ago by LittleBibo1
592 Comments - Last post 26 minutes ago by ayuinaba
28,967 Comments - Last post 45 minutes ago by Xiangming
34 Comments - Last post 53 minutes ago by koon
54 Comments - Last post 58 minutes ago by skadogg
Hi good morning friends SG could explain the graphical chance to win daily, it is true that if you enter multiple sweepstakes changes the probability ?
Comment has been collapsed.