Two years ago, I started working on a lottery number generator that used quantum number generation. Back then, I had finished it pretty quickly but it was hacky and there were problems that got in the way of true randomness like the largest integer with 7 bits being 127, and I was adding min value to the generated integer which basically in effect shifted the generated integer to +1. And there were many other problems to it, and the program was crude.

But now I decided to work on it some more after along hiatus and I've finally achieved true quantum randomness to lottery number generation.

Post source code. Based on your screenshot it looks like youre using pythons inbuilt 'random'

>>40767308 (OP)
How about some winning numbers anon. I'll use them on the next ticket I buy.

>>40767379
Classical RNG generation is an option of this program, and it does use Python's inbuilt random, but that's a very small part of the program.

For quantum generation I use an imported Q# program called GenerateRandomBit

the code for the Q# program is this
[code]
namespace QuantumRNG {
open Microsoft.Quantum.Intrinsic;
open Microsoft.Quantum.Measurement;

operation GenerateRandomBit () : Result {
// Allocate a qubit
use q = Qubit();

// Put the qubit in superposition
// It now has a 50% chance of being measured 0 or 1
H(q);
// Measure the qubit and return the result
return MResetZ(q);
}
}

>>40767524
>>40767379
Classical RNG generation is an option of this program, and it does use Python's inbuilt random, but that's a very small part of the program.

For quantum generation I use an imported Q# program called GenerateRandomBit

the code for the Q# program is this
[code]
namespace QuantumRNG {
open Microsoft.Quantum.Intrinsic;
open Microsoft.Quantum.Measurement;

operation GenerateRandomBit () : Result {
// Allocate a qubit
use q = Qubit();

// Put the qubit in superposition
// It now has a 50% chance of being measured 0 or 1
H(q);
// Measure the qubit and return the result
return MResetZ(q);
}
}

>>40767533

can you post a string of random numbers for us please anon? about 15 - 25 numbers should do.

>>40767592
It doesn't just post random numbers, and if it did then then most of the random numbers would be longer than the character limit on 4chan posts.

So it would have to be a string of random numbers in a range, like 10 random numbers between 1 and 100

>>40767308 (OP)
ok but how does this increase your chances of winning the lottery compared to normal rng's or just simply coming up with your own numbers ?

>>40767599
can you post a random 75 digit number for me anon ? or is it not possible ?

>>40767308 (OP)
One powerball ticket and one mega millions ticket please email these numbers to me here and don't post them 56qpy743it36@protonmail.com

>>40767640
the range of a 75 digit number is 10^79-1
you are asking for likely a very huge number

but here it is a random number between 1 and 10^79-1

>>40767308 (OP)
do you even have quantum computer op?

>>40767659
thanks man

>>40767652
I would have to do it tomorrow because I don't have an anonymous email and I'm about to go

>>40767678
does it do european lotteries or only us ones ?

>>40767678
Alright no problem. I'll be waiting for the email

>>40767685
I set up fields for custom lotteries where the user inputs the range, but it might not work for all lotteries

Like if you have a lottery, and it draws numbers between 1 and whatever, and it has between 1 and whatever numbers, and if it has 1 bonus number then yes it should work.

I'm working right now on the program to allow the user the possibility of optionally allowing a generation of the number 0, but that's not in the program yet. So if 0 is in the lottery you want then it doesn't work for now but I can probably have it in the program sometime tomorrow. Most US lotteries do not draw 0

>>40767700
no neither of them uses zero but two of three use 2 bonus numbers instead of just 1 , can it generate numbers if i give you the details ?

>>40767720
Ok, I'll do it real quick. Tell me the lottery, or what numbers are drawn in the lottery and how many. And if it has a bonus number or not

>>40767725
>>40767720
Wait. Only tell me the lotteries that draw 0 or 1 bonus numbers. I haven't added anything to the program to allow 2 bonus numbers. I would have to do that tomorrow.

I didn't know any lotteries had 2 bonus numbers

>>40767308 (OP)
here are some random numbers
>5466867964534687467432346764346
yes I used quantum computer to generate them
>how? can you post your source code
yeah I can. here you go: I smacked my numpad and the quantum computer that operated my hand was my spine (no not y brain because brain does not actually think, the spine does)

>>40767731
oh ok 6 numbers from 1 to 49 and 1 bonus number from 1 to 9

those with 2 bonus numbers in europe are eurojackpot and euromilliones

>>40767751
Here you go

>>40767758
thank you

>>40767696
>>40767678
>>40767652
>>40767308 (OP)
Just please when you generate the powerball and mega millions generate them right before you send the email.

>>40767758
>>40767760
oh wait

that is psuedo random

Here is a result with quantum generation

I'm going to work on adding some more features to the program tomorrow so it's more compatible with other lotteries, and it shows more info on the output

>>40767767
lol ok thanks again

>>40767586
I like it, do you have the github/gitlab?

>>40767634
>ok but how does this increase your chances of winning the lottery compared to normal rng's or just simply coming up with your own numbers ?
It doesn't. But the losing numbers generated will be a "true" random set. Isn't that thrilling?

>>40768122
>Isn't that thrilling?
meh whatever floats your boat i guess

QuatismAnon, good to hear from you again.

>>40768333
I thought they're two different guys?

I'm working on updating the program now

The biggest problem with randomly generating integers for lottery numbers is that lottery numbers are not bit perfect. If they were bit perfert, every lottery number would not exceed 6 or 7 bits. And every lottery number would be 1-63 and 1-127. Those numbers are bit perfect. 63 is exactly 6 bits, and 127 is exactly 7 bits. The current method I've been using with my program is called rejection sampling.

So the problem with lottery numbers that are not exactly 6 or 7 bits is there are left over bits. It inefficient and there's no bit reuse for validly generated bits.

So I'm working on implementing a new method of generating integers with quantum bits. Particularly the bit recycling method, and I'm considering to implement other generation methods as well.

My previous method with sampling rejection was much more simple. It just threw away results with integers that were greater than the max range of the lottery numbers. There was about a 33% rate of rejection.

But a quantum bit that gets generated in my mind, is valid. It shouldn't be thrown away. And there is a way to keep that bit without adding any bias to the randomness of the quantum generator. And it is more computationally efficient than rejection sampling.

I'm working on updating the program now

The biggest problem with randomly generating integers for lottery numbers is that lottery numbers are not bit perfect. If they were bit perfet, every lottery number were 6 or 7 bits would be valid. 1-63 and 1-127 are bit perfect. 63 is exactly 6 bits, and 127 is exactly 7 bits. And even though those numbers are valid, they are not always valid for the lottery. There's not many lotteries that will accept the number 127.

So the problem with lottery numbers that are not exactly 6 or 7 bits is there are left over bits. It inefficient and there's no bit reuse for validly generated bits. The method I've been using with my program is called rejection sampling.

So I'm working on implementing a new method of generating integers with quantum bits. Particularly the bit recycling method, and I'm considering to implement other generation methods as well.

My previous method with rejection sampling was much more simple. It just threw away results with integers that were greater than the max range of the lottery numbers. There was about a 33% rate of rejection. The number 120 is a 7 bit number, but it is not a valid number for the Mega Millions lottery.

But a quantum bit that gets generated in my mind, is valid. It shouldn't be thrown away. And there is a way to keep that bit without adding any bias to the randomness of the quantum generator. And it is more computationally efficient than rejection sampling.

>>40769928

My randomness tests run much faster with bit recycling. I'll post results in a few minutes.

>>40770004
>>40767652
Tomorrow is fine but please don't forget about me!

>>40770028
Do you just want numbers? I want to make sure my quantum numbers are bit perfect.

>>40770040
I'd like a perfectly random powerball and mega millions ticket. I'm willing to wait

>>40767308 (OP)
I'm a brainlet. How do you declare something quantum resistant without using a quantum computation to test it against?

I'm including multiple quantum methods that the user can choose from. Bit recycling is best in my mind. It is bit perfect.

But the cascade extractor method and Fourier method are so rigorous that they're used in cryptography algorithms. These two are very computationally expensive, and they do reject bits. A bit being rejected does not harm randomness.

>>40770070
The tests are classical statistics tests not computational tests.

The tests check for uniformity. True quantum randomness is perfectly uniform. They check for obedient to exact probabilities distributions, they check for independence, they check for pattern absence, they check for entropy, and they check for multi dimensional context independence.

Quantum randomness has statistical signatures and tare mathematically provable and testable without quantum computers.

Here are the test results with the cascade extractor method. It's a cryptographic number generation method.

You can see with these other methods, that there is a difference in quantum randomness depending on the method used.

Testing the Fourier transform method could take hours.

>>40770268
Is this method better than quatism
https://jsfiddle.net/pg2sLnd4/

>>40767533
Wtf it just returned hello world to me.
Is this an ai!?

>>40767586
Can I use it to generate some numbers?

Fourier transform testing nearly done after running 1.5 hours

I've added new tests, and new features to the program as it has been running. I'm close to having a working v1.0 for it.

I'm going to connect my program to an IBM Quantum API, and have my program return quantum bits from a quantum computer rather than simulating it with Q#

But I won't be able to run extensive tests with this API. I need to do testing with simulate Q# program. You can only query it so much, and there's no way in hell they'd let me generate 10,000 lottery numbers.

I've added a feature to the program to make API calls to a real quantum computer, which retrieve the quantum bits. Or real quantum cloud computing service. It's operated by some university.

These are real, not simulated quantum numbers. Unless the university is lying.

Here's a dump of a log of the program handling the call from the Quantum API
https://pastebin.com/xxm3d0fq

It takes each bit, which is a 1 or 0 from that call and then uses them to generate integers. This log will show you how it works, and how the bits are generated by the API, and what the program does with those bits.

I don't know if I'm going to finish everything today. There are still more changes I want to make to the program.

It is becoming very robust. There is not a lottery number generator in the world nearly as featured as this.

For OP or anyone interested:
I found a horse racing system in Australia that was allegedly developed in the 90s and sold to this boomer with almost zero tech know how, he used it for himself and his son and also re-sold the system with a license.
Its basically a software package with API into one of our Australian horse racing bookmaker sites. It scans the days races in the morning and based on the race, conditions, amount of runners, win pool and odds on those runners, will pre-select a number of races, then as those races get closer it re-looks at the race to see whats happening to the odds, scratchings, conditions and most importantly the odds, I think at about 3 minutes out it asks the user if the want to proceed and if they do it goes ahead and places bets on a number of runners within selected odds band effectively 'dutching' those runners. The system uses race and session targets, daily stop loss and ladder rungs for losses and what not. Very effective and quite successful from my years of research. They were doing about 200k-300k a year from it.
I never purchased it, as it was too expensive for my liking. But I saved as much of the information I could that I was able to dig up.
I put all of that info into GPT and GROK recently and had some interesting results myself, of course as soon as I would mess with it or make changes the results would vary but based on as close as I got it to theirs I had it at about 80+% win rate which is similar to what they claimed and so with smart stop losses and recovery methods you end up on top most months. If anyone can build this with me, i'd be happy to share everything I have on it and work with you to build it. Just reply here and i'll find a way we can communicate.

>>40772056
A program like that is very possible, especially if you consider above 50% win rate as a success. But I don't know about being a 80% win rate.

I don't know anything about horse racing though

>>40772083
The reason it is 80%+ is because you are not going for one horse. You are dutching a number of them for example 3-5 of them and usually within a favorites band and always with other race selection criteria which I wont go into here. So in other words races are carefully selected and then in those races its basically just statistical probability of the handful of favorite runners and some number magic to work out how much to bet on each to both achieve a net win and reach the target for the race/day etc. I've used it through GPT and Grok cos im not that saavy and it works. Just as soon as the LLMs sperg out it stops working well or if I change things in my tests.

>>40772240
If you send me your program I can look at it. I'm working on my quantum generator right now but I may be able to work on it tomorrow.

Those notes in the image are your notes of betting with this system?

>>40772273
I dont have a program (yet). I am trying to reverse engineer the original program, at least to an instructional level based on tests I am doing with GPT and GROK by using my years worth of notes, emails from the original program vendors, some videos etc. Eventually I hope from all my tests I can come up with a model/instructions for a developer to put it all together for me.
Where would I communicate with you?

Yeah those notes are cut off due to screep cap but yes they are just my own notes from some of my own tests.

This thing works, meaning their system, but its not fully automated, a human needs to kind of oversee it and make decisions at the end, afterall you are handling a bankroll.

Also the original system recently got taken offline due to issues with the bookmaker and the systems vendors getting into a dispute because essentially the API use agreement says you cant use for commercial use and they were basically doing that by selling their software which was connected to the API and so they got caught. But am sure there is a solution here with other APIs/Bookmakers or web scraping or something and then just manually making the bets.

>>40772325
Do you know what parameters the API checks?

Obviously stuff like the horse's ranking in the last race, and the races that season, and the previous seasons. What kind of data is provided on these websites other than race ranking? If you know what the API checks it shouldn't be difficult to reverse engineer it.

But why reverse engineer this specific system and not come up with your own system?

>>40772389
>>40772325
And the only way I know of how to build a system, for weighting racing horses would be to distribute the weight of the horse's ranking, with the last race having significant weight, and last few races significantly weighted, the entire season weighted moderately, and some small weight to previous seasons that gradually taper off.

Weighting the horse's age, with prime age giving the most weight, and then tapering off into old age

What other data is available online of racing horses? Top recorded speed, and the date it was measured? If there is something like that it would be given weight as well.

>>40772389
This is the brilliant part. It does not care about the horses race history or data. Not really anyway. Its hard to explain and I have not completely nailed this down 100% (otherwise I would not be trying to reverse engineer it) but the general rule is that its not looking at this sort of thing (horse rankings, speed, last race results etc.). Its purely looking at favorites based on their odds band. The reason for this is that it is well known and the data backs it up that favorites win most races so this is just an example, but the favorite wins 30-35% of the time, next favorite (second favorite) wins 18%, so on and so forth. Thats why this system is brilliant IMO because it is leveraging the hive mind of the punters (the people betting) and their knowledge and research.

So I think from what I can tell the API checks were on this specific data point, odds band, and it also looks at live race data (time), I think also weather conditions, and total win pool. Also I think the software was placing the bets for the users too.

I cant rule out it wasn't looking at the horses rank, race results etc. and I know from my notes there was mention of it, but I think, that this was more the user himself who was looking and overriding the system so if he knew one of the horses did not perform well but was still a favorite he would remove that horse.

Also the users sometimes made comments about drifting in or out of the odds band, so similar to above, I dont know if the program was doing this or if it was just his human knowledge, my feeling was that it was the user doing this and not the program but I have no evidence for that.

You can try to come up with your own system, the reason I chose to try to reverse engineer theirs is because A) I know it works, I followed it for years and was having conversations with the vendors semi regularly, it seems like a smart system, most systems try to pick winners, this one doesn't, its just using math mostly with some added rules

>>40772413
See other reply obviously, it should now make more sense.

What other data, there is a TON of horse racing data. This is a literal industry on its own. There are many sports and horse racing professional bettors out there and they all rely heavily on horse racing data of which there is a TON, both free and paid, but as explained, we dont really need it, if at all.

>>40772413
Im going to lunch now. How can we communicate outside of here if this interests you? I can setup an email I guess?

>>40767533
lol, that is not how quantum computing works, nor is it actually random. You have created a matrix of probability with a rather finite range of 50/50. With permutations the probability can become quite small for any specific number, but smaller integers are going to be extremely common. Nothing about that is random.
Basic high school math can tell you this is nonsense.
You can't just say something is quantum and make it so. You actually have to place quarks into a field and observe them as an array. Which of course places them into a quantum lock and makes them form into matter. IE: a flow of electrons representing a bit within a transistor.

>>40772792
There is so much wrong with what you wrote I can't bother to dismantle all of it.

>You actually have to place quarks into a field and observe them as an array
First, quarks are confined within hadrons and aren't directly and aren't directly manipulated in quantum computing. Second quantum computers generate quantum bits through systems like super conducting circuits, trapped ions, or photons not
>quarks in fields
You're conflating particle physics with quantum computing. These are not the same thing. I was talking about one thing, and you blew up arguing incorrectly about an entirely different subject.

>quantum lock and makes them form into matter
Quantum lock isn't a real term in quantum mechanics. It's a philosophical construct that has nothing to do with quantum mechanics and is entirely philosophical. Are you just throwing out word salad?

>a flow of electrons representing a bit within a transistor
So this is what makes for true quantum mechanics in your view? Quantum computers don't rely on electron flow through electron flow at all by the way. That would be classical computing.

>>40772792
There is so much wrong with what you wrote I can't bother to dismantle all of it.

>You actually have to place quarks into a field and observe them as an array
First, quarks are confined within hadrons and aren't directly manipulated in quantum computing. Second quantum computers generate quantum bits through systems like super conducting circuits, trapped ions, or photons not
>quarks in fields
You're conflating particle physics with quantum computing. These are not the same thing. I was talking about one thing, and you blew up arguing incorrectly about an entirely different subject.

>quantum lock and makes them form into matter
Quantum lock isn't a real term in quantum mechanics. It's a philosophical construct that has nothing to do with quantum mechanics and is entirely philosophical. Are you just throwing out word salad?

>a flow of electrons representing a bit within a transistor
So this is what makes for true quantum mechanics in your view? Quantum computers don't rely on electron flow through electron flow at all by the way. That would be classical computing.

>smaller integers are going to be extremely common
I could prove this wrong mathematically. I have a function that does this in my program. If you try to argue whatever stupid point you're trying to make, then I will prove it beyond a doubt.

So, no one will reverse image search ops posts?

>>40772544
>>40772567
Betting patterns could very well be a predictor and I'm sure there are people that use systems with this to get a higher than 50% win rate. But deliberately excluding other data? The more data you collect and parse, the more accurate a prediction could be.

The best system would collect many data points, like betting patterns, raw horse performance or physicality, and horse history-- and combine them into a system that give various weights to each data point. Determining what weights to give to each is something I'd have no clue about since I know nothing of horse racing. Because if it were me, I'd give the most weight to top horse speed, or horse "0 to 40" or whatever, and historical horse ranking. That would probably not be ideal.

It could only improve the prediction accuracy.

>>40773118
I kind of agree in one sense because I have not seen a clear comparison of a system that does what I am presenting (because I don't know for sure, if it is ONLY using the data that I think it is likely only using, or if it is using more data) with one were it uses as much data as possible in a dutching model (spreading the bet across multiple runners). The hallmarks of this system are statistical probability (betting on favourites based on specific odds band) and dutching.

What you are more describing is what many professional horse bettors use (and non professional, its just that the pros have access to far more data). They look at horse race data and try to predict based on all known data points, which horse is going to win. The system I am describing does not necessarily require that and as I have said I am not even sure if they even take it into account as technically it is not required because all of that analysis is done buy the bettors and we see that show up in the odds if that makes sense.

Although I do like your weighted idea. So potentially the odds band is the highest weight and then under it some combination of horse performance and race data.

>>40769928
But why don't you use the greatest common denominator and then collapse them into the desired number of digits? In /sci/ they can give you some advice.

Finally, the most major feature is implemented.

Quantum generation from a quantum computer. Here's a log of the generation, and the calls to the API bit by bit. Every step from 0 to 1 on the quantum API, to the lottery numbers. If you're interested, you can read it. I also have less verbose logging that looks cleaner. I'm happy with it.

If you don't believe that I'm generating real quantum numbers then look over the log
https://pastebin.com/XE6kNVLk

The program is working, fully functional now with many different methods of lottery number generation. It's not completely done yet, but it's close. There still mostly minor changes and features I want to add.

Finally, the most major feature is implemented.

Quantum generation from a quantum computer. Here's a log of the generation, and the calls to the API bit by bit. Every step from 0 to 1 on the quantum API, to the lottery numbers. If you're interested, you can read it. I also have less verbose logging that looks cleaner. I'm happy with it.

If you dont believe that I'm generating real quantum numbers then look over the log
https://pastebin.com/XE6kNVLk (embed)

The program is working, fully functional now with many different methods of lottery number generation. It's not completely done yet, but it's close. There still mostly minor changes and features I want to add.

>>40767308 (OP)
>create random number generator that does not correlate with lottery results.
Why even bother with this larp. If it’s random it does matter if it’s a standard python random, module, actual quantum computing or just a bunch of Indians you’ve hired rolling dice.
It won’t give the actual results because it’s random.
So the whole larp is stupid.
Do you even think before you start these larps?

>>40774018
Because I believe that true randomness has magical properties.

>>40774043
It has random properties and cannot correlate to the lottery results because it’s intentionally random and unrelated. That’s the purpose as described.
Your larp is shit. If you want to pretend quantum has some amazing properties for matching lottery numbers then you don’t make it random which by its very nature cannot be random and match lottery numbers.
Work on better larps or better still just don’t do them at all.
Pathetic.

>>40767308 (OP)
import numpy as np
from qiskit import QuantumCircuit, Aer, execute

def quantum_random_number(min_val, max_val):
# Calculate number of qubits needed to represent the range
range_size = max_val - min_val + 1
num_qubits = int(np.ceil(np.log2(range_size)))

# Create quantum circuit
circuit = QuantumCircuit(num_qubits, num_qubits)

# Apply Hadamard gates to create superposition
for qubit in range(num_qubits):
circuit.h(qubit)

# Measure all qubits
circuit.measure(range(num_qubits), range(num_qubits))

# Execute circuit
simulator = Aer.get_backend('qasm_simulator')
job = execute(circuit, simulator, shots=1)
result = job.result()
counts = result.get_counts()

# Convert binary result to integer
binary = list(counts.keys())[0]
number = int(binary, 2)

# Map to desired range
return min_val + (number % range_size)

def generate_lottery_numbers():
numbers = set()
while len(numbers) < 6:
num = quantum_random_number(1, 49)
numbers.add(num)
return sorted(list(numbers))

# Generate and print lottery numbers
if __name__ == "__main__":
lottery_numbers = generate_lottery_numbers()
print("Your quantum-generated lottery numbers:", lottery_numbers)

>>40772056
Fellow Ausfag. Are you able to share any more info? Just a smidge?

>>40774043
I believe something more or less like that. I'm about to build a device that uses a microcontroller to store the pulses in a Geiger tube generated by an americium source. Instead of generating random numbers, I will analyze if it deviates from the expected poissonian distribution, and when and how much. I expect to put it under test while AP, among other things.
Don't you need a physical qbit in your implementation? Otherwise it is emulated, and not truly quantum.
Anyway, good luck with the project, fren.

A test run a quantum API

The test run has an incredibly high confidence of the accuracy of the quantum randomness even with a small pool of generated numbers.

Another test with a larger sample size. I cannot do very large sample sizes pulling qubits from this API. It's a public university API providing free quantum generation.

These are definitely quantum bits, and then my program took these qubits and converted them to integers. This is the result of testing those converted integers.

Very high quantum confidence. It was impossible for me to reach this high of a confidence with quantum simulation generation. I could get close to it, however.

I would say the program is in a fully functional state now.

Who wants lottery numbers?

I read about a radionic device which supposedly gave the correct winning lottery numbers for a given lottery every time

i don't believe you! >>40767308 (OP)
true randomness not exist.

Why don't you give us access to the program? i need lottery numbers for friday btw

>>40777120
Wouldn't that same person just win infinitely and become a trillionaire? doesn't make sense. Where did you read about this?

>>40767308 (OP)
>true quantum randomness
true quantum randomness cannot be achieved on a purely classical computer retard.

>>40777313
furthermore processing "true quantum randomness" on a classical computer makes it not true quantum randomness even if the numbers were generated using a quantum rng API or a quantum device connected to a classical computer

>>40777214
The program isn't a stable release state, and if I distributed out to people to use the quantum API I'm using to make calls to would get shut down. Because people would be spamming the API.

I'm using the only public quantum generator API that I know of. There's not many quantum computers in the world.

>>40777120
>>40777219
I forgot where I got the information
Turns out I still have the document about it, not sure if its really legit but I'll condense it down into a few pics for any here who may be interested

>>40777669

>>40777684

>>40777763

>>40777784

>>40777845

>>40777877

I thought my program was functionally stable

But I just found a massive complicated bug

>>40777894
clearly schizo bullshit

>>40772945
>There is so much wrong with what you wrote I can't bother to dismantle all of it.
>Proceeds to reddit spacing attempt at explaining what Chat GPT told him to say.
>threatens to post more Chat GPT code as proof