Talk:Mnemonic major system/Archive 1
 | This is an archive of past discussions about Mnemonic major system. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 1 |
Peg list
- Expand your Peg list by adding colors and smells, textures. I got to 1'000'000 pegs that way.
Glad you got to a million pegs, but... --Ed Poor —Preceding undated comment added 14:25, 18 September 2002 (UTC).
Use of Lottery Numbers as an aid to memorization
Lottery numbers for the California Lottery for July 28, 2004 using the major system for memorizing numbers. A PERL script was used to create random short english phrases as an aid to memorization. The script works by permuting the provided digits into every possible order and then partitioning each possible ordering into a set of tokens. A dictionary lookup then chooses random words for those values for which tokens exist.
In a preferred embodiment, a program like WordNet would be used to choose words according to a noun-verb-noun or like structure; idealy so as to obtain a short phrase that coorsponds to a neologism or current news event. In the following list the phrases LOUD ENDGAME RUMBLE seems to suggest some kind of sporting event, and the phrase OLYMPIAD GOTTEN MOREL might work out better as OLYMPIAD GO! 12345 ... which translates to: 5391712345 which in turn yeilds the indicated draw set. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lazarus666 (talk • contribs) 21:00, 1 August 2004 (UTC)
MAIN: 5 12 17 34 39 MEGA: 5
—Preceding unsigned comment added by Lazarus666 (talk • contribs) 20:44, 1 August 2004 (UTC)
Winning Stuff
Therefore, if one realizes that using the major system for memorizing numbers the phrase how to be a millionaire - you earn it, ok? and translates it using the appropriate PERL code, then on realizes that this phrase encodes the sequence 19-35-24-42-17 which came up on the California Super Lotto on May 3, 2003 along with the mega number twenty. Now if one does not want to earn it for oneself, then one hopes that the cookie monster will bless one with the wisdom to make up ones own winning magic cookie phrase (hopefully without having to extort, bribe, or blackmail any public officials), or else its just you have to be tough when you're a man - who knows? which by a remarkable coincidence encodes the sequence 8-19-18-24-32 with mega 20 which came up on the California Super Lotto on January 18, 2003. There was no jackpot winner on that draw.
Whether a so-called greedy algorithm exists that would make it possibly to increase one's chances of winning the Lottery, (with an honest ticket that is) is not publicly known. There may be significant implications as a result of the conclusions that can be drawn from a deep analysis of certain mappings of linguistic patterns onto finite grammers of various types. (see Chomsky). This is in part because it is becomes possible to develop denumerable or recursively enumerable sets of features of an intellegence system, even though such problems of analysis are frequently thought of as being intractable. Unforturnately, many people suffer from a failure of imagination.
—Preceding unsigned comment added by Lazarus666 (talk • contribs) 04:04, 29 August 2004 (UTC)
Get your own Stuff
#!/usr/bin/perl -w # use strict;
sub cipher; sub make_interval;
$N = make_interval ("47");
$M = make_interval ("27");
$R = qr/{($N)($N)($N)($N)($N)($M)}/;
# This is a quick and easy PERL function that translates a # cookie in text form into an actual playable set of # Lottery numbers! It requires the make interval function # and an unspecified "cipher' function to do the mnemonic # substitution - either by pattern analysis or by dictionary # lookup.
sub xlate_cookie1
{
my ($text,$sequence) = @_;
$text =~ s/[?;:!,."]//g;
@tokens = split (/\s+/,$text);
$sequence = "{";
foreach $word (@tokens) {
$value = cipher ($word);
$sequence .= $value;
}
$sequence .= "}";
print "SEQUENCE: $sequence\n";
$sequence=~/$R/;
@THE_NUMBERS = sort {$a<=>$b} ($1,$2,$3,$4,$5);
$THE_MEGA = $6;
foreach $num (@THE_NUMBERS) { print "$num "; }
print "MEGA: $THE_MEGA\n";
}
# This is the quick and dirty cipher program to translate # words into the appropriate mnemonics. Handles quite a # few words correctly, Of course the best way to to this # is by using a phonetic dictionary.
sub cipher
{
my ($w) = @_;
$w =~ tr/A-Z/a-z/;
$w =~ s/jua//g;
$w =~ s/alk/7/g;
$w =~ s/cr/74/g;
$w =~ s/ficia|ficie|ficio/86/g;
$w =~ s/ould/1/g;
$w =~ s/tion/62/g;
$w =~ s/ussi|ssu/6/g;
$w =~ s/god/71/g;
$w =~ s/ng/27/g;
$w =~ s/[aeiou]ss/0/g;
$w =~ s/age/6/g;
$w =~ s/ght|tt|t|dd|d/1/g;
$w =~ s/kn|nn|n/2/g;
$w =~ s/mm|m/3/g;
$w =~ s/rr|r/4/g;
$w =~ s/ll|l/5/g;
$w =~ s/sh|ch|j/6/g;
$w =~ s/ck|k|co/7/g;
$w =~ s/ph|ff|f|ugh|v/8/g;
$w =~ s/gho|ca|cou|g[uo]/7/g;
$w =~ s/bb|b|pp|p/9/g;
$w =~ s/[szc]/0/g;
$w =~ s/[aeiouwhy]//g;
$w =~ s/\D//g;
return $w;
}
# This creates a pair of strings of the form: # 1|2|3|4|5 .. and so on up to .. |43|44|45|46|47 # which are used in the pattern matching functions.
sub make_interval
{
my ($i) = @_;
my ($str,$j);
for ($j=1;$j<$i;$j++) {
$str.=$j; $str.="|";
}
return $str.=$i;
}
Lazarus666 02:31, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Human Character System, Edward System
This section is sufficiently distinct from the major system that it deserves its own entry. It is also something of a mess. It refers to the Lorayne system, for example, without explaining what it is and is unreferenced and unlinked. And the EDWARDS system uses a different mapping of the numbers to letters? Unless there is objection, I'll remove it to its own entry where it can be improved by itself. DonSiano 18:18, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
Mnemonic Major System (Lottery Example)
The George Bush example was obtained by taking the numbers from the California SuperLotto game for January, 21, 2006 and running the drawset through a PERL script which examined every possible permutation of draw order along with all possible partitionings of each draw order for the indicated draw. From this it is possible to generate random candidate phrases, as in the previous example. It is also possilbe, if you have cookiemonster.pl to to dump the word lists for every possible ordering. The next step is to filter the word list and group them according to a theme, so that words like COWARDLY, COURTROOM, WARTIME, MEDICAL, and MEDICARE would seem most relevant to a common theme, i.e. in this case Politics. From this, one chooses an appropriate mental image, and a story to go with the word set. By having redundant words to work with, it becomes possible to always and reliably reconstruct the correct mental picture and to thereby recover the correct set of numbers. In effect one must apply on a small scale an algorithm similar to those which are used in sequencing DNA from the various overlapping fragments which are obtained using restriction enzymes.
MAIN: 2 17 33 41 43 MEGA: 5 dumping word lists
143 atrium derma dharma diagram dorm dram drama dream dreamy drum durham durum headroom term theorem thermo thorium tram trauma trim yttrium 173 outcome tacoma 174 attacker dakar decker decor dicker docker ducker edgar tacker taker talker thackeray thicker ticker tucker whitaker whittaker 175 dewclaw ducal ethical ethically tackle tagalog tequila thickly thiokol tickle 217 antigua antique indigo intake nighthawk winnetka 241 henrietta henriette honored honoured ignored inert inertia inherit inroad inured inward nard narrate narrowed neared negroid nerd north onward unearth unheard unhurried unhurt unread unworried unworthy wainwright 243 anagram norm norma unarm 317 medico midweek 331 homemade maimed mammoth mohammed muhammad 334 mammary memoir memory 335 mammal 341 amerada emigrate emirate hammered hemorrhoid homeward humored immigrate maraud mardi marietta marred married marriott mart marta martha marty merit merritt migrate mired mirth moored mort myriad 343 merriam miriam 411 airtight awarded eroded erudite graded graduate grated gratuity greeted gyrated hardhead hardwood hearted heartwood herded heredity hoarded irradiate irritate radiate radioed raided rated readied readout redhead redid redwood rethought righted rigidity rioted rooted rotate rotted routed rutted warded worded 413 arrhythmia iridium radium ragtime redeem rhodium rhythm wartime 414 ardor artery arthur arturo eritrea girder grader grater greater greedier gritter harder hardier hardware herder orator oratorio oratory order radar raider rater rather reader readier redder redraw retire retiree retro retry retter ridder rider righter rioter ritter rooter rotary rotor rotter rudder ruder rutter ryder urethra warder weirder werther worthier writer yarder 415 airedale ardelle earthly girdle gradual gradually greatly greedily hardly hartley heartily hurdle hurriedly hurtle ordeal radial radially radiology rattle readily redial retail retell retool riddle rightly rigidly ritual rudely rutile weirdly wherewithal worthwhile 431 armada armed groomed harmed hermit ramada rammed remade remedy remit remote rhymed rimmed roamed roommate warmed warmth wormwood 434 armor armory armour grammar grimmer groomer harmer rammer reamer remarry rhymer rimer rimmer roomier rumor rumour warmer 435 airmail grimly warmly 741 accord awkward carat card cared carried carrot cart carte cohort cord corrode court coward cowherd garret garrett garth gored gourd guard guardia haggard hogarth karat karate keyword kraut kurd kurt quart quarto queried yogurt 743 aquarium coram gorham hookworm karma quorum 1175 idiotically 1431 diagrammed doormat dreamed dreamt drumhead drummed termed termite trimmed 1435 dermal thermal trammel turmoil 1741 decorate dickered dockyard 1743 decorum 2173 endgame 2411 anorthite inherited narrated unearthed unrated 2414 inheritor narrator norther nurture 2431 enormity unarmed unharmed 3174 medicare 3175 medical medically mythical 3411 emigrated immigrated meredith merited migrated 3413 maritime mortem 3414 magruder marauder martyr meriwether migratory moratoria mortar mortuary murder 3415 immortal marital martel martial mortal mortally myrtle 3431 mermaid 3434 marmara murmur 4143 aerodrome earthworm 4341 armored ramrod remarried rumored 7413 khartoum 7414 carder carter cartier corder corduroy corridor courter courtier garter quarter 7415 awkwardly cardiology cartel cartwheel cordial cordially courtly cowardly quartile 7434 kramer 7435 caramel carmela 17414 decorator headquarter 34143 moratorium 34341 murmured 43175 grammatical hermetically 73341 commemorate 74143 courtroom 143175 dramatically 217414 hindquarter
Lottery example
This example seems too long compared to the body of the article, yet is still not adequately explained. What, for example is a mega 5? What is the indicated draw set? Why does 5263014335 partition into 5 26 30 14 33 5 and not 52 63 01 43 35. How does "well mom i enjoy my dreams" relate to the shuttle flight? What is the purpose here? Is it to learn to associate the date of an event with its lottery number--a parlor trick? Better examples of the use of this system abound.
The next 2 examples just uses the same procedure on a different number. They are indeed redundant. How is that helpful to someone interested in this subject? I understand that you, Lazarus666, have a clever way of generating words from numbers by computer, but fail to see how the extra two examples add much. Better would be a comment about the automatic generation of words... DonSiano 23:04, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
The reason that 5263014335 partitions uniquely into 5-26 etc, and not 52-63 etc, is because the California Lottery only goes up to the number 47, hence the 5 must stand alone, and the 6 must either be a six or a part of the number 26, and so on. Given the fact that a Lottery draw set in the SuperLotto game has five numbers with a trailing mega, which is restricted to the range 1-27, these constraints will usually uniquely contstain the possible drawset associated with a phrase to just one. In fact the PERL code to do this, i.e., partitioning a sting into such a constrained set is almost trivial!
I suppose that there are other examples, perhaps memorizing the set of numbers to a combination lock would be a good one. Usually the digits will work only as pairs of digits, since given a six digit number for a lock which with a range of 0-40 on the dial obviously places a similar constraint to the one that I have mentioned. Likewise with IP addresses, if your IP address is 192.168.0.1 and you come up with a phrase associated with 19216801, chances are you will be able to remember what the groupings are.
On California Super Lotto Plus, the February 26, 2003 was a lot of fun. The draw set was 13-23-37-38-40 with mega 9. Some of the cookies that I came up with include the following, MY CARS MOVE ON MY TIME – I HOPE. MY CRIES MOVED MY ENEMY, I HOPE. MY CRIES MOVE TO MY ENEMY. BYE. MOVE TO MY NEW HOME. MY GRASS UP? I MOVE TO MY MAKER’S NAME. UP! TOMORROW IS WHEN I MAY MAKE A MOVE. I HOPE. MAKE A MOVE HERE SOON MEN. MAYBE. TAMMY KNEW ME. MAKE A MOVE ROSE. BYE. WHAT? MY ENEMY MAY COME FOR US. BYE. WHAT MY ENEMY? WE MAY HAVE ‘EM CRISPY. But if you have a signficant other in your life it doesn’t get any simpler than this (especially if her name was either Tammy or Rose!) MAY I COME OVER? YES. NAME A TIME: 9. A TIME MAY COME FOR US. NOW – MAYBE?
Thus with regard to the statement - that "well mom I enjoy dreams - well?" it is just that, a statement. However this leads to the concept of entropy and the density of states in a system that from the point of view of computational linguistics shares certain features with quantum mechanical and statistical mechanical systems. From this point of view the 2-26-03 draw on the California SuperLotto game has the highest "entropy" in this permutation and partitioning space of almost any that I have seen. But for practical purposes, some phrases are easier for some people to remember than others, and hence a story about George Bush or the Space Shuttle, or Scott Peterson may have transitive value, but will it be as interesting in a hundred years? On the other hand, a phrase like "a time may come for us" or "well mom ... " tends to have a more permanant social interpretation.
Lazarus666 01:23, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
Another high entropy example Here are the numbers for the Calfifonia Super Lotto game on Valentines Day 2004. 31-21-36-22-45 mega 10 ANYONE MAY WISH - HE MIGHT KNOW WHAT REALITY IS. I IMAGINED REALLY MAD INNUENDOES. A NEWTONIAN MESH? REAL METHODS. A NEWTONIAN MESH - MATH REALITIES. I MADE A NEWTONIAN MESH. REALITY IS. A REAL NEWTONIAN MESH MADE WHAT IS. WE ARE ALMIGHTY NEWTONIAN MIDGETS. HE WONT MATCH ANYONE. REALLY MAD AT US. YOU REALLY MIGHT NOT MATCH ANYONE: WHO DOES? I MIGHT NOT MATCH ANYONE - WHO REALLY DOES? YOU REALLY MIGHT NOT MATCH ANYONE WITH US. I WANT A MATE. MY WISH: A MATCH. NO ONE REAL? I WOULD SIGH. ANYONE REALLY WANT A MATE? A MATCH DOES. IN TIME SHE MIGHT KNOW WHEN REALITY IS. MY WISH? - I WANT A REAL MATE. ANYONE? NO ONE REALLY MADE MY WISH - I WANT WHAT IS! I REALLY MADE A MATCH IN ONE NIGHT. IN ONE NIGHT I MADE A REAL MATCH. EARLY ON, ONE NIGHT I MADE A MATCH.
Lazarus666 01:59, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
This stuff on entropy, quantum mechanics and so on is nonsense. I have a Ph. D. in physics, and don't appreciate a snow job. I stand by the proposition that the examples are redundant and unclear--too much knowledge about the lottery system and its jargon and constraints are left out of the explanation to make it comprehensible to a naive reader.
Lazarus666, you also failed to answer several of my questions about relevance and redundancy.
I don't believe it is useful to describe in detail how the major system can be combined with the other systems (pegs, links, loci, etc.), because this would require an explanation of each of these other systems as well. The lottery number example attempts to do this for links, but I see no reason why it should be included as opposed to the other possible combinations.
Perhaps the whole example should be moved to a new entry that stands by itself, where it can be elaborated upon and improved, without throwing off the balance of the major system article. Half the article as it stands consists of this example, which is far too much. DonSiano 09:19, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
I must point out that entropy in information theory has a broader definition than ds = dQ/T. From the wiki article on Information entropy, it is clear that Shannon's definition can be extended to the analysis of English text:
- It is important to remember that entropy is a quantity defined in the context of a probabilistic model for a data source. Independent fair coin flips have an entropy of 1 bit per flip. A source that always generates a long string of A's has an entropy of 0, since the next character will always be an 'A'.
- The entropy rate of a data source means the average number of bits per symbol needed to encode it. Empirically, it seems that entropy of English text is between 1.1 and 1.6 bits per character, though clearly that will vary from text source to text source. Experiments with human predictors show an information rate of 1.1 or 1.6 bits per character, depending on the experimental setup; the PPM compression algorithm can achieve a compression ratio of 1.5 bits per character.
Thus, the analysis of Lottery draw sets do share some properties with certain quantum mechanical systems. One feature is the existence of degeneracy which can be related (by definition) to entropy, and which has mathematical as well as physical interpretations. In the case of otherwise grammaticly correct English phrases constructed from any corpus of random or ostensibly random numbers (such as lottery numbers or roulette spins), I propose that the entropy or degeneracy of such a set be defined to be a monotonic function which is covariant with the number of well constructed phrases which can be constructed from a particular input.
As far as creating a whole writeup on this subject goes, the problem with this proposition at this time is that it is not known to have appeared in published literature, and technically the wiki has a policy against original research - even if it is ground breaking, innovative, and worthy of the Nobel. That is to say that the wiki is not the place for first publication. Talk pages might be an exception of course, as well as the possibility that by posting a portion of the source code to cookiemonster.pl, I am in effect putting at least that portion of the code into the realm of GPL. Otherwise, there is the very strong possiblity that some Intellectual Property Claim Jumper will attempt to obtain a patent on my prior art! For me, being underfunded as it were - it is better to let certain potential patent rights on the artificial intelligence applications of my work fall into the public domain, than to end up being sued by others down the road. Remember the Amazon one click shopping patent?
Or I can just delete the whole work and contact a patent attorney and say to hell with ever releasing another line of my code under GPL!
Lazarus666 12:02, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
For whatever its worth, I changed the various occurances of the word mega in the Lottery example to mega number and created a page with an explanation of what a mega number is, since not everyone plays the Lottery or knows that what in some states is known as a Powerball type game, is known as a mega game in others.
Lazarus666 12:57, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
Lotto Numbers too long
I removed 80% of the Lotto Numbers section. This is too long and doesn't fit well with the rest of the article. Perhaps this should be moved to it's own page, in which case it would be approiate to have so many examples. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Julians (talk • contribs) 22:23, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
Memorizing Lottery Numbers
I suppose that if the Wiki community is OK on the idea of creating and maintaining an entry on memorizing Lottery numbers, that that would indeed be a good place for many lengthy examples. However I can also forsee that such an entry might trigger a vote for deletion or a dispute over NPOV, possibly for the same reasons that the method of loci is said to have been dropped from school curricula in the 1500's, i.e., the ease with which such memory systems can conjure up "obscene or innappropriate thoughts!"
How should the community procced then - when the wiki indeed has some VERY long paged dedicated to Magic the gathering, various cartoon episode guides, vivid elaborate catalogs of fictional places, etc. On the one hand, hard drive space is cheap, and as a person interested in the development of artifical intelligence applications, I forsee that each and every one of those things contributes in some way to enhance the understanding of the complexity of the problems associated with developing a culturallly literate AI ... besides making the Wiki a useful resource.
A major objection with shortening the article to just one example would be that having several examples helps to overcome the very frequently encountered objection that "oh that only happened once" when I tell someone that the Lottery numbers can be cribbed out of a phrase like "MY JOB TODAY RAN ROUGH" (September 21, 1991 California!). Indeed there is a whole page of logical fallacies which includes such things as Availability heuristic, or Texas sharpshooter fallacy and so on, where one of the common fallacies is to "cite only cases for which examples exist" as in finding hidden messages in Shakespeare. Now with the Lottery problem, what are the implications if I assert that one of the utilities of the major system is that cases nearly always exist. If only one example is given - many would argue "that that happened only once", and if several examples are given, some would argue that the article is too long? Would the community prefer a proof, based on a theory of entropy, degeneracy and covariance in English texts whereby a state vector approach can be used to map various overlapping subspaces (or projections of subspaces) onto a degenerate domain? There is quite a bit of material on Chomsky, and finite grammers as such, but I am not aware of any published findings on degeneracy in permutable vector spaces on finite groups that would clearly establish, i.e. without a catalog of examples, so as to overcome the Texas Sharpshooter objection!
Yet the Texas sharpshooter objection is easilly overcome, by simply ennumerating a set of well ordered, grammaticly correct English phrases and sentences for every Lottery that has ever drawn, or for a sufficient number of examples from an arbitrary sampling interval. If the examples are found to be consistantly a fluke, but for only one Lottery - then the only reasonable conclusion is that THAT PARTICULAR Lottery is RIGGED and the officials are taking bribes! Otherwise, if the patterns always appear in any Lottery, then we are dealing with a Ramsey theory type problem, and a very interesting one at that, particularly since it evokes the possibility of performing computational linguistics in a meaningful way using finite grammers to encode various internal states, and thereby linking those states to a broader catalog of declarative knowledge. This finding however is not known to have appeared in the published literature, and thus by the letter of the law, violates Wikis policy on original research - other than, as far as I can tell - use of the method to demonstate the utility of mnemonic systems.
Perhaps the existing examples can be made into a table, or maybe we should delete the daffy logde example, and try to maintain an NPOV but relevant set of examples whereby the major system can be used for Lottery numbers, locker combinations, IP addresses, phone numbers, etc. At least with Lottery numbers, the random numbers are provided for us, as if by fiat, so there is no debate over whether the sinking of the Titanic or some particular battle in history is the most relevant. Phone numbers arent a good example because of the 555 problem. Therefore, if we can agree to keep a well developed Lottery example, along with carefully chosen examples on how redundancy, or repetition can help, or is often necessary with memory systems to maaintain accuracy (see method of loci and follow some of the links!) - then maybe the best examples for the Lottery would be some of the ones I have given.
We will almost always run into length problems with certain types of articles, especially with subjects that are technical or mathematial in nature. Some of the articles that deal with subjects like algebraic topology have unavoidable length issues also, except that those articles are more easilly split up by pointing to sub topics like Abelian group, and so on.
Lazarus666 00:45, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
Thinking out loud here, concerning the POV vs. NPOV issues with this subject matter. So I asked the cookiemonster for advice. Tonights Super Lotto drawing in California includes the numbers 3-9-13-27-33 with mega number 13. Now there is no rule that the mega number must trail the main numbers, we could just as well state that as long as there as a separator, like a zero, or we simply keep a mental note of which number is the mega number, then would could put the mega number out in front, and thus for tonights numbers we would do well if we could find a sensible statement that encodes the sequence 1339132733. So taking the example whereby a mental image of hurricane Katrina helps picture the numbers from January 21, I will use an added zero as an arbitray separator in between the 13 and the 3. This tends to weaken the process of disambiguation, but as long as some redundant words are used, it doesnt really matter, as long as we get a powerful mental image that helps to summon up the key words. Thus the following phrase yields tonights winning Super Lotto numbers, right here in California!!
IT MAY, YES ... MAY BE TIME TO GO HOME! HOME!
Is the handwriting on the wall for the Bush administraion?? Obviously being very POV here .... (and actually this sentence encodes the sequence 13039131733 which using the suggested partitioning would give 13-3-9-13-17 and 33, not 13-3-9-13-27-33, as I stated last night - and that was before the beer! Still is is an interesting thought, better would be:
IT MAY, YES ... MAY BE TIME! NOW GO HOME! HOME!
—Preceding unsigned comment added by Lazarus666 (talk • contribs) 21:40, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
peg system
I moved the sections that were being added to this article about cards and peg systems, etc to the article on mnemonic peg system, which along with the method of loci really are seperate categories. Otherwise, I have been trying to maintain the most interesting and useful examples, i.e. the Lottery numbers as a usable real world example that hopefully doesnt suffer the problem of phone numbers - "you mean 867-5309 really is somebody's number?" vs. 555 in the movies, or pi. Since lots of people play Lotteries, and since some people always play the same numbers, a method of quickly ciphering the actual numbers if you watch the drawing on TV, as well as remembering the numbers that you play is somewhat useful.
Lazarus666 03:46, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
- The peg system examples belong here because they combine the peg system with the major system , and would not make sense to someone unfamiliar with the major system.. Someone reading about rhyming pegs is not going to understand why Hell is the 5 of hearts, or "cow" is the peg for 7, or "coach" is peg for 76, or how radon's atomic mass translates into "no no no sad catch". Those examples only make sense here. Even if there may be discrepencies with "the 555 problem", that is no reason to delete all mention of phone numbers. Phone numbers are something everyone needs to remember in real life.
This is supposed to be an article about the major memory system and how it is used to memorize things. It is NOT an article about the lottery or about the bible-code like patterns you have found hidden in the winning numbers. Aside from being original research (your own comments show that you were posting many examples to show that the pattern you claim to have found may not be random),, THAT IS NOT THE TOPIC OF THIS ARTICLE!!! Reveted.JeffStickney 11:19, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
Workaround for 555 telephone number problem
To prevent the possibility of accidentally publishing real phone numbers, the examples will be 8-digits long. While that may look silly there is a boxed-in note at the start of that subsection explaining the exact reason why there are 8 digits. To accurately portray what this system is and how it can be used in the real world, it needs examples of the types of things it can be used for in the real world, and phone numbers are one of the most direct and straightforeward applications that this system has. For the sake of this article, I guess 8-digit numbers will have to do. JeffStickney 04:10, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
- The article might not show any real US phone numbers, but eight-digit numbers beginning with 7 and 8 are valid phone numbers in London in the UK. I don't intend to try the number stated, but it could well be a valid phone number here in the UK (dialled from within London, or else it would have to be prefixed with 020 to be dialled from elsewhere in the UK) and possibly elsewhere in the world too. — Paul G 14:12, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
- It's not worth worrying about anyways. TV shows and movies use 555 because they get millions of viewers, and the number would be associated with a memoriable character or scene. This article has probably 50 viewers tops, and it is clear from the context that these numbers are pure random. Besides, it being extremely unlikely that anyone would dial these random numbers, today we have caller ID and *69 (both invented after the 555 numbers). In this article it is really a nonissue and not worth worrying about. JeffStickney 15:02, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
Wikibook?
I think the assorted and overlapping memory techniques (peg system, major system, loci, etc) would make a good Wikibook. JeffStickney 13:52, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
Removed candidate for deletion tag
Removed candidate for deletion tag as this article has long been listed as a wikibook candidate on the one hand, and on the other hand the person who tagged it did not make and comment on this talk page suggesting a reasoned analysis of the rationaile for the tag.
Otherwise, I fixed a bunch of stuff that got broken, or was bady rearranged, i.e., the Katrina piece and the 555 problem should make more sense now. Obviously, there are going to be some neutrality issues with the Rubinoos v. Avirl lawsuit being in litigation, but something similar to the 555-1234 piece was on Avril's weblog for a few days last week, i.e. as a comment. Obviously a more persistant reference would be desirable in order to conform to "encyclopedic" guidelines.
With the indictments for fraud and racketeering against Pearlman being "pending" and with there being 1000's of investors and "others" it would be quite a challenge so show that this article actually is encylocpedic based on reference to some witness statement or court transcript, espescially one not yet filed in either case!
Then again only just recently did Kelly Clarkson make any sort of comment that Never Again was about a real situation that she has finally gotten over to the point that she can perform that track as a performer and not be actually all caught up in whatever that was really all about. A reference from Britney on the fan site that is stronger than "dignity, integrity or down boy!" or the like would certainly be useful, i.e. as to when and wherever she might have admited that that is exactly what happened, if she ever did so to persistent media.
Nonetheles, someone on the discussion page on Lou Pearlman has asked for additional information about "additional charges", and at Pearlman's bankruptcy auction one of the items auctioned was a photo of Pearlman and Britney. Link that to Britney's former rehab counselor in the news having been forced to sign a non disclosure agreement regarding certain "legal issues" and the speculation should be obvious.
So what if Pearlman is in big trouble, and I want to tear him apart like I did Peterson? In Peterson there was a gag order. I live in California. During the Peterson trial I was prohibited because of the gag order from saying that I saw Scott Peterson crush the missing Croton wristwatch underfoot outside a certain nightclub somewhere between San Diego and the San Francisco Bay area! So sorry for the Peterson family that is still offering a reward for the return of the missing watch. Scott destroyed it before he went home and killed his wife!
I could of course make the Petersn example more neutral by adding the example that if you take the phrase "oh but you bait my innocent boy" and convert it with the provided PERL script, that yes indeed it will convert to yet another winning combination for some lottery draw in '03 or '04. For that one, imagine Scott Peterson's attorney Mr. Geragos saying exactly that - to who? Me? The Cookie Monster? Mr. Super Lotto Jackpot Machine? Was it rigged? Was it former Governor Gray Davis who rigged it, or was it a bunch of crooks who were working with Lou Peralman and murdering materal witnesses like they were houseflies to try to keep a nearly half billion dollar Ponzi scheme afloat? Who really knows? This part is still specuation.
The historic lottery draws and other examples are not speculation and and offered for those how might find the system useful for some hopefully lawful purpose.
Lazarus666 06:53, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
Yes, I know that I put some off-topic material in this article, i.e. as if to imply (and intentionally so) that there is a very large problem with mis attribution, and outright fraud in the music publishing business. As the Rubinoos v. Avril case develops, some of this will either go away, or else become part of a separate article. While not mentioning Britney directly, the following article does add substance to the flames.
Lazarus666 01:54, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
- A photocopy of a lottery ticket and at least 2 full screens of Brittney Spears trivia is more than just "some" off topic material. It does not belong here at all, because it has nothing to do with the major mnemonic system. So a random number came up which VAGUELY(2 digits different + a complete reordering ) resembles the numbers for "hit me baby one more time"- So what? Does that justify page after page of completely irrelevant rambling? It would justify -AT MOST- one line "hit me baby one more time =1139923413" in an "examples" section. This is supposed to be an encyclopedia article. Not your private blog. The topic of this article is "the Mnemonic Major System- NOT the California lottery!
Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_an_indiscriminate_collection_of_information JeffStickney 23:55, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
- Your music "example" 555123454=G-G-G-C-D-E-F-G-F, also has nothing to do with this system. It has letters and numbers, but that's where the similarity ends. It is a different mapping altogether. JeffStickney 00:16, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
My recent edit.
Most of this page was how-to and instructional, rather than encyclopedic and was tagged as such. Since wikibooks is the place for how-to instruction, I removed the tagged stuff from this article and added a link to the appropriate wikibook page.JeffStickney 22:12, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
- Looks good to me, I don't see how any of that content could have been rescued for inclusion in WP. dr.ef.tymac 22:14, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
Re add some of the deleled material
Some of the lottery examples have withstood the test of time for nearly three years now, i.e. at least as far as NPOV and most other issues would seem to indicate. Now they are under attack because they are "how to" or examples. After following the link to the page that lists articles that need clean up because they contain "how to" I discovered that this list also includes C++ and Java which are criticized apparantly for including the example "hello world?" Hence I dissent. My interpretation of "how to" is that the Wiki ought not include articles on "How to rebuild a Borg Warner T5 World Class transmission from the Ford Mustang - step by step", or "how to make LSD" for that matter.
Somewhere this was debated, i.e., so that appple pie is included, and even the ingredients for making an apple pie or any other kind of pie in general, but specific baking instructions are not normally wiki - there must be a reason for this - just as there might be an article somewhere on what the various percentages are of the ingredients for high strength concrete ... general information as such does not carry a great deal of liability if someone read "so thats what its made of", on the other hand in a litigious society, yada yada yada, "so and so says he ruined a hundred pies with your recipie and his restaruant went broke just before his home made concrete crumbled" ...
I could go on and on and find 1000's of "how to articles" that survive or should survive .... possibly how to find a cube root by synthetic divsion, or "how to calculate the billionth digit of pi", i.e. since an algorithm is implied - is that probited how-to knowledge?
With respect to the fact that "hit me baby one more time" is 139923413 vs. the actual indicated Lottery draw set, the fact of the matter that the order in which Lottery numbers are drawn does not matter, with the exception of the so called mega number has been thouroughly explained. The same logic can be applied to the problem of memorizing the digits of a combination lock, where if a "too good to resist" code word for an alternative permutation exists, then it is probably better to memorize the alternative permutation and do the digit swapping as needed, i.e., if the real combination is AA-BB-CC but it is easier to remember a word that codes BB-AA-CC, then remember BB-AA-CC since there are only six permutation of groups of number pairs, as opposed to 6! permutations as a whole. Have I made this clear before -- when memorizing a set of numbers, where each number is only one or two digits, there are the cases where the permutations either do not matter, or are so very limited that the correct set is easilly retrieved by handling the obvious exceptions.
This is in addition to the standard exceptions, i.e. regarding doubled letters. Thus the sequence 139923413 can be partitioned several ways, such as by pairs of digits 13-99-234-13, which does not quite give the indicated draw set. ON the other hand, it should be obvious that neither the 13 nor the nine can repeat so the proper partiioning would have to be something akin to 1-3-9-(92)-34-13, which is closer to the indicated draw set. In fact 2 is the repeated digit, and extra nine was the bonus number, but apparently you would never beleive me unless I find a notebook somewhere and upload the page that I was writing sentences on in the Fall of 91! (actually I think Britney took it)
Some of the lottery examples have withstood the test of time for nearly three years now,
- Respectfully, it is not a justification to say that content is not a violation of WP:OR simply because it has gone uncontested for a long time. Even if it were not apparently pure "original research" most of what you cite here seems thoroughly inconsistent with the purpose of a general audience encyclopedia article. dr.ef.tymac 11:56, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
How about this source for the Lottery idea? In the 1980's then KYFC-TV channel 50 in Kansas City was run by "Youth for Christ", as I recall. They had a syndicated Christian Talk Show called Something Beautiful. In June 1983, either Mr. Lorayne and or/ Mr. Lucas appeared on that program, and they discussed the application to Lotteries in some detail. Not with these specific examples, obviously, but rather I think that they were promoting the idea of "total mind power" or something like that, i.e. as to how the power of prayer and thinking about whatever you want to happen can bring God's influence into your life. That is to say they Lorayne went beyond using the major system as a only a memory aid, even to the point of saying, once again, that it could be used as a part of a personal motovational system. Unfortunately, I cannot procure a transcript of that broadcast, I simply remember seeing it, as well as some number of other, as there were many talk shows of that era that many young people today have scarcely heard of, e.g., Merv Griffith, Tom Snyder, etc.
Since Mr. Lorayne and Mr. Lucas advanced these ideas on the talk show circuit in the late 70's and early 80's, I believe I have covered the following objections.
It introduces a new theory or method of solution; It introduces original ideas; It defines new terms; It provides or presumes new definitions of pre-existing terms; It introduces an argument, without citing a reputable source for that argument, that purports to refute or support another idea, theory, argument, or position;
Of course, if someone who has some more specific information about the broadcast that I remember seeing, maybe someone in Kansas who can more easilly procure television logs of that era, that would be a big help.
Lazarus666 14:56, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
- That might help, but respectfully, you may wish to reconsider whether this material is appropriate for Wikipedia at all. Even if the transcripts in question were produced and cited directly, the level of detail and the nature of the claims presented here cast serious doubt on whether any such substantiation would help. WP:NOT#HOWTO, WP:NOT#BLOG, WP:SOAP. Please consider transferring this content to Wikibooks if salvaging it is important to you. dr.ef.tymac 15:15, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
In its current slant, the article is mainly about using the mnemonic major system for numerology. Numerology is already covered in a different article. We should focus on presenting the concept of the MMS in an encyclopedic fashion. --rxnd ( t | € | c ) 16:11, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
I disagree. The main text is NOT about numerology, even though some of the sources cited do mention something like psedo numerology. Numerology as such is typically about predicting the future, or whether or not a person will have good luck or bad luck based upon certain mappings A=1, B=2, etc associated with the letters in ones name. The music references are based on standard textbook music theory which teaches beginning piano players that the right thumb is one, the index is two, etc, based on the standard fiver finger position of the hand at the piano for the chord in play. (and yes the vocal for the song hit me one more time does begin 1313 ... in C natural minor in ADDITION to the phonetic mappings of the chorus, AND the fact that the phrase "should have never let you go" has the word "go" to rhyme with Camarillo! That WAS how it was WRITTEN!) So the fact that "Twninkle Twninkle little star" can be played something like 1155665544321 has absolutely NOTHING to do with religious pseudoscience. In the examples, however, I dont construct a "pass phrase" for learning Twinkle, but I suppose that I could. On the other hand, as it appears that I have suggested that Mr. Lorayne advanced a type of numerology, I will repeat that he did not. The major system is NOT about numerology, even if Mr. Lorayne apparently did attempt to advance an idea of using the major system as a part of a collection of techniques akin to the Alexander Technique
Let me be more specific: numerolgoy as such assigns "good luck" to certain numbers, and so on, just as astrology associates specific meanings to particular planetary positions. The major system, as a practical system does no such thing, in and of itself. It does however appear to be possible to construct numerologic type metaphors that provide very strong visual or other recall of any fact that is useful to remember. That is part of the power of the system. Whether there is a "causual" relation that has something to do with a deep undelying order in the Universe is NOT a topic of the article, which if it were would make this numerology.
There is however another scientific reference on this, i.e., Ramsey Theory which seems to suggest that any large enough data set will always contain some apparently non random features. Now a typical Ramsey result would be that if six people sit at a table there will be either at least three mutual acquantances, or three mutual strangers. Now try the related problem: if every time a lottery set is drawn, each pair of numbers that can be groups could be considered to be "friends", at least for awhile -- now I really do venture into my original research on the subject. Connect those with words, and a chain or memes emereges, which evolves over time. Obviously, I have not hit the jackpot with this catalog of memes ... so it is weak as a predictive device, at least as I have applied it in that respect. But it does work for memorization, which is the practical use of the major system described by Lorayne. See also Theorem on friends and strangers.
Based on the Theorm on friends and strangers then, it would be interesting to futher Ramseys work to include the use of various memes that that can generated based on degenerate subspaces which are implied to exist within a certain specified hyper geometry which consists of not less than 47 vertexes, and where each meme that is constructed, ala "friends and strangers" would represent a different graph coloring. I think you will find that Ramsey number = 47 is somewhere around the magic number where a Ramsey problem becomes very difficult.
Lazarus666 16:43, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
Removed the pseudoscience tag since a memory technique in and of itself has NOTHING to do with fortune telling. Left the numerology tag since the term numerology has also been applied in some limited but serious scientific contexts, i.e. on such topics as the to the question as to whether or not age of the universe in some context of the granularity of time vs. the number of protons is related in a phyiscally meaningful way, but for which a deductive argument has not been offered.
Also removed (again) the how-to tag -- after spending quite a bit of time looking up other articles to find a prime example of a hopefully good article such as 12 bar blues or even Chord progression which believe it or not contains some examples based upon the relevant liturature whereby a reader might actually learn how to do something useful with the information in the article, i.e., without it being a "how to" in the sense of well whatever. There is likewise a difference between "what a guitar fret bar looks like and what the notes are" vs. "how to put strings on a guitar and tune it to those notes." I for one do not believe that implying how to do something by giving some carefully thought out examples is prohibited by policy.
I'll leave the request for additional sources tag where it is for now, as I think a source may exist .. but I'll either have to find it ... or if someone else has it they can post it. That would be very nice
Lazarus666 18:58, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
Re Edit war
I undid Drefymacs edit, because that edit appears to revert to a much earlier version of this article which undid my edits, but which also undid Rxnd's edits ... hence if someone insists on tagging portions of article, then go ahead and re add the tags until the issues are resolved, but dont trash all of the efforts that have been made since the original tags were added, i.e. trashing the efforts that ARE being made to bring the article into compliance.
Lazarus666 19:55, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
- Please re-add the tags yourself since you improperly took them out to begin with. Thanks. dr.ef.tymac 20:19, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
I am not going to re add the How to tag, because there are plenty of untagged how to articles, such as this one: mental calculation, and as I do not see a disupte for that article, or chord progression, or whatever - I dont really know if I need to come up with a catalog of acceptable how-to vs. unacceptable how-to material that reflects a consensus view. If sucha a consensus view exists, or if such a catalog exist, tell me where it is, i.e. post a link. But as I see it, prohibited how to is more along the lines of "how to rebuild the transmission in your ford mustang" as opposed to how to do mental arithmetic, or examples of basic musical theory and interpretation.
I moved the original research tag, so that it will be more visible, and IMHO that is really the only reasonable objection to this content, and it doesnt have to be right now this minute to have every possible source, espesicially with material like 16 year old Lottery results, which most people would find hard to beleive, except for the fact that I saved the receipt for the results from that day!
Lazarus666 20:25, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
- You also removed the "unencyclopedic", "confusing" and "original research" tags. Moreover, your repeated reference to "other articles with how-to sections" is, no offense intended, but it is frankly irrelevant. Those other articles may have problems as well, but those other articles are beyond the scope of this discussion:
Wikipedia articles should not include instructions, advice ... ... instruction manuals, ... and recipes ... or suggestions, or contain "how-to"s. If you're interested in a how-to style manual, you may want to look at our sister project Wikibooks
- From (WP:NOT#GUIDE).
- Also even if we ignore "how to" ... this article clearly provides unsubstantiated advice, none of the following content is supported by any kind of citation, reference or clinical study. None of this appears to be relevant outside of someone wanting "recipes" for how to apply the "system":
- it is generally better to use whatever works best for that mind than to insist on rigidly following the system's rules
- pi is a good practice tool, and one who is adept in using this system can easily come up with
- Using the major system, a peglist can be constructed for the numbers 1 through 118
- As lotteries involve random number patterns, they can be used for practicing this system.
- With practice it becomes straightforward to link news events, to lists of numbers, to specific winning combinations.
- The major system can also be used as a creative device.
- Sometimes situations will arise where it is better to deviate from the system.
- There are entire paragraphs in this article without a single reference. How can someone verify this is not the opinion of some specific individual unpublished author? WP:NOT#BLOG. There are many many reasons why this material is questionable.
- Please demonstrate good-faith by putting back *all* tags that you removed. I demonstrated good faith by giving you a chance to cite this stuff, and by not deleting it, even though it is (IMO) clearly inappropriate here. Even though I disagree vehemently with the content, even though I believe it is directly inconsistent with WP:NOT-HOW TO, I left it in pending resolution.
- Now it's your turn, even though you may disagree vehemently with the tags you removed, this issue is not resolved. So put the tags back in. Thank you. dr.ef.tymac 20:55, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
I dont use "peglists" myself, i.e. for memorizing ordered lists, so that particular item is not one of mine (the 1 to 118 pegs), and this article does have a long edit history. It does appear however that the University Of Amsterdam article in the notes describes the use of peg lists and gives peg words for the numbers 0 through (at least) 99. So that is one unreferenced paragraph that can be fixed directly (alright I have to look up how to do that one - or some one else can do it.
I read the Loryane book in 1976, and dont have my original, i.e. to see of Lorayne mentions modifications to the system, i.e. being flexible with double letters in words, etc? Now as far as whether or not one needs a cite a clinical study (???) that is a pretty tall order for an established system, yet there are sources in the list of references that refer to memory contests, holders of Guiness book records for pi or card memmory, etc. Would a qoute from one of those people suffice, since you are unwilling to consider the possibility that 16 years ago I sucesfully memorized the numbers from the California Lottery for most of 1990, 1991 and well into 1992, along with news events, when the numbers were drawn, appointments that I kept, what I ate, and whatever else I needed to remember. As I recall, this system served me quite well from about age 16 (1976) well into my mid 30's at which point it became clear that I would not remember everything forever. Otherwise - I still remember the Lottery numbers from most of 2003, and the only reason I dont know all of them from 2006 is that I just simply dont pay that much attention to them any more. (I do know the numbers from last week - and I am thinking of a phrase)
Other updates to be provided
Lazarus666 21:21, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia article based on personal anecdotes: not acceptable
you are unwilling to consider the possibility that 16 years ago I sucesfully memorized the numbers from the California Lottery for most of 1990, 1991 and well into 1992, along with news events, when the numbers were drawn, appointments that I kept, what I ate, and whatever else I needed to remember
- This is *exactly* my point Lazarus666 this information about your personal background is *not relevant in Wikipedia* ... please consider writing a Wikibook.
- Please put back *all* the tags you removed, this issue is not resolved. Thank you. dr.ef.tymac 21:42, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
- Thank you for putting them back. dr.ef.tymac 21:44, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
More confusing stuff
I added back the link to the wikibooks page without deleting anything this time. Regarding the how-to content, an article about the major system should explain what the major system is, and that may not be possible without SOME of the content coming across as how-to. However the level of how-to detail in this article is WAY too much. Keep the chart and a BRIEF description (maybe one or two examples),and keep the history section because that section IS encyclopedic, but everything beyond that section should go (including the stuff I wrote-I'm no wikisaint)., as it clearly violates wp:not#HOWTO Let wikibooks handle the meat of the how-to, especially since there already is a wikibook page and a link to it. As far as the lottery examples go, they are not only how-to, but I find them hopelessly confusing and extremely difficult to follow. A good how-to (which does not belong here anyways) would use many simple examples of "These are the numbers" and "these are the words" with very little prose. That way someone can see what number goes with what without having to jump all over the page, and without being distracted by irrelevant and off-topic details. The "hit me baby one more time" is a particularly confusing example because the numbers "1,3,6,13,22,34" do not map to those words until they are rearranged. Someone who is trying to learn the system, will see those numbers, and the words which do NOT match the numbers and will only be confused by the mismatch and will give up in frustration. In other words it is not just how-to, it is bad how-to. When writing how-to advice (which belongs in wikibooks, not here), you should try to keep it simple and straightforward. Do not assume your reader automatically understands the system (you are not writing to the people who understand this system because they don't need your help). You should be write to the people who don't "get it" yet, and jumping from "1,3,6,13,22,34" to a phrase which doesn't match, or to the mapping "555-1234(54)=G-G-G-C-D-E-F-G-F" (a mapping which has nothing to do with the major system) will only confuse and frustrate those readers. JeffStickney 00:46, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
Really, this should not be the least bit confusing. There are a number of cases where it does not matter what order the numbers occur in, and this makes rapid memorization much easier. So once again, lets consider the numbers from the California Super Lotto on February 5, 2003. We aleady know that space shuttle disentigrated a few days before this, and that that phrase A LAUNCH MYSTERY gives the sequence 5263014, which is part of the indicated draw set. It cannot be 52-63-0-14 because that particular game does not go up to 52 or 63, that game only goes up to 47. Likewise I dont know of any Lotto type game that includes a zero, and once again, with the execption of the mega number or a bonus number in some games, the order of the numbers does not matter. So the word "dreams" encodes the fact that the numbers 14 and 30 came up, just as well as the word "mystery" encodes the numbers 30, and 14. Now if a space shuttle had not exploded that week, but instead there was a food fight at your school, all other things being the same, you might use the phrase A LUNCH TRAY MESS, with some other infomation about the type of food that was thrown!
There is however at least application where the order of the numbers does not matter as much as the speed whereby one can select code words, as well as discard them as needed, and that is while counting cards in the game of Blackjack. Suppose that the dealer shows down and ace=1, and a 3 and a 4 and 10. Either "mystery" or "dreams" will work well here, as you do not have to explicitly keep track of the order in which the cards were seen in order to keep a running count. Then on the next hand, you might be faced with the prospect of deciding whether or not to hit a 16, and you might make your decision that on the previous hand you saw "dreams" and a few other words that tell you that there arent a lot of threes or fours left in the deck, and maybe all of the fives are gone as well. For some players this is much more effecient, i.e., to keep a small set of code words for which the exact count for any particular card can be quickly recomputed, rather than trying to remember the running count for every card.
In any case the phrase "Hit me Chopin one more time" does give the exact sequence 1369223413, where it is only necessary to remember that 9 was the bonus number for the indicated draw.
Oh, and for whatever its worth, the numbers on the mega millions from 7-27-07 were 7-12-35-54-55 and mega 2. Lets see now 555-1234(54), hmmm not exactly, but 55-54-12-35-7-2 is the same information, they're almost all there. "Well, Well, what now? = 55-12 and "Call Her!" = 7-54. Now if you know that 555-1234(54) is the melody for "I want to be your boyfriend" and you can imagine someone telling you to call Avril and say "hi!" then the phrase "Call her" reminds you that 7 and 54 came up on the mega millions, and the rest is almost 555-1234, but its NOT, it is 1235. Now think about this for awhile, because the more time you spend trying to think of different words for these numbers, including other trivia, it makes it that much easier to keep track of the melody to the song, the month of the lawsuit, who was sued, and what the mega millions numbers were the week that an article was posted about "who really wrote that song anyway". Pleasant dreams. Lazarus666 03:26, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
O.K. sorry if I "repeated it all" but "repeated it all" gives the sequence 4-9-11-15 when partitioned into a set of numbers. Tonights California Lottery numbers were 4-9-11-15 and 25 with mega 18. So "I repeated it all, only to have" my edits blocked gives the complete set. Lazarus666 03:26, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
- 3-19-23-36-39-8. dr.ef.tymac 04:14, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
Here is an even better mnemonic for the July 27 2007 mega millions draw: This was the week that OK magazine (OK=7) published a story about Britney's MELTDOWN. Now the words "melt" and "down" would separately = 351 and 12, however most authors suggest that when a consonant is repeated within a word, that the digits are not, so that parallel would be 9455, not 94555. Thus OK MELTDOWN is a perfectly acceptable mnemonic for the numbers 7-35-12. Now all that remains is 55-54 and 2. This is very easy to remember in this order, if you can imagine that also in the news that week is the Rubinoos lawsuit, so if you are aware of the possibility (because you have practiced the song) that the 555 problem might RUIN thier lawsuit, then you have OK MELTDOWN - 555 RUIN, and this gives you the numbers for the mega millions for the week.
Lazarus666 09:59, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
- "parallel" is 9455 not because there is a "special rule" for double letters, but because the double-l is only PRONOUNCED once. Phonetically it is pronounced "paralel" despite the spelling. In "Meltdown" the SOUND is made twice. (In fact t and d are not even the same sound- they are only similar). It is not pronounced "Mel-town" or "Mel-down" The t sound is used to end one syllable, and then a similar sound is used to begin another syllable. That doesn't mean you can't remember it your way, but you are making an exception which may confuse the reader who is new to this system. I often intentionally mispronounce ing verbs like fightin' and fishin', but exceptional examples like that may be confusin' to someone still trying to figure the system out. A non-ambiguous example("Camel down? Well he'll learn"-visualize an incompetent zookeeper) may work better for the novice. That aside this is just more how-to content which may be appropriate for a how-to guide (though I believe short, sweet and to-the-point is easier to follow than lengthy and wordy prose), but it is not appropriate in an Wikipedia article, especially considering that a) Wikipedia's official policy is wp:not#HOWTO, b) there IS a wiki for how-to guides (Wikibooks), c) Wikibooks already has a module on the subject, and d)this article has a link to that module.JeffStickney 13:24, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
A third opinion
I came here as a result of a request for a third opinion posted by Dreftymac. I have never heard of the MMS and, to my recollection, have never met any of the editors involved here, so I think I am as neutral an observer as can be. My opinion after reading much of the article and talk page is that the article itself is encyclopedic and worthy. However, most of the information in the sections marked {{unencyclopedic}} seems to me out of place in Wikipedia. IMO, a fair solution would be to move this stuff to Wikibooks. The page there is currently very sparse and a guide of the sort we have here would fit naturally there. I agree with JeffStickney in that some very brief and simple examples can stay to make the subject clearer, but it seems to me that a paragraph or two at most would suffice for this. There certainly is no need for photographs of lottery tickets: any number will do for the purpose of illustration. The mnemonic for pi seems to me a particularly simple and clear specimen. --Zvika 19:51, 30 July 2007 (UTC)