Brighton are right back in it if they win tonight and at home to Swindon on Saturday. I never realised they had such a great chance of six points this week.

They should have another fans united day to help them out.

With ten minutes to go Brighton are still winning 1-0 at Hereford. I would much prefer a draw or a home win myself, it would go a long way to putting Brighton out of it...

why do I have horrible feelings in my waters about our most recent defeat at Brighton coming back to haunt us in the worst way possible..................

Hereford and Cheltenham are down now. Even if they won all their remaining games they'd scarecely have enough points.
I didn't realised till I just looked that there was such a gulf between 14th and 15th. Those above the line are to all intents and purposes safe now, leaving the Orient to Northampton group wetting themselves and Brighton praying for a miracle.

Great. I bow to your alleged superior maths skills (arithmetic actually, though I could have overlooked a bit of Leibnitz and Euclid).

If Orient can't go down and tonight's results made no difference then two points will see us safe. That's excellent news.

But do I need to carry the 1

All right then, algebra.

Its more like Probability Theory as it's all a game of chance that certain actions will take place.
I think you will agree that Bayes Theorem sums it up succinctly.

Bayes' theorem relates the conditional and marginal probabilities of events A and B, where B has a non-vanishing probability:

P (A\B) = P(B\A) M(A) / P(B)

Each term in Bayes' theorem has a conventional name:
• P(A) is the prior probability or marginal probability of A. It is "prior" in the sense that it does not take into account any information about B.
• P(A|B) is the conditional probability of A, given B. It is also called the posterior probability because it is derived from or depends upon the specified value of B.
• P(B|A) is the conditional probability of B given A.
• P(B) is the prior or marginal probability of B, and acts as a normalizing constant.
Intuitively, Bayes' theorem in this form describes the way in which one's beliefs about observing 'A' are updated by having observed 'B'.

I wonder if the Bayes quoted above is Ashley Bayes the Stevenage keeper?

oh not the old Bayes theorem.

That's far too succinct for me, Hawklord. I think I'll just wait and see

Probably the best theory of them all.

The problem with probability theory, and this is where Hexham often got it wrong, is that people mistakenly use probabilities additively instead of subtractively. This can produce trivial results such as probabilities greater than 1 (that's 100% for the layman).
The only safe way to get it right is to look at the probability of something not happening.

I hope you're taking notes here Chip.

Surely the probability of something not happening is often the reverse of something else happening? So that, one can be derived from the other? But then, I'm hopeless at maths.

*stares blankly at screen not having a clue what you's are on about*

What Montpoolier is suggesting is that we stop using additives and then we will all be healthier.
In other words, minus e.numbers.
I hope this helps.

nope, still just a noise....

Well, go and have a lie down for a bit

thats a cheeky invite

Salty and Grabey are neither subtle nor a secret.

It is indeed until you start adding the probabilities together.

Additive method: the probability of drawing an heart from a pack of cards in five attempts, i.e., the first or* second or third or fourth or fifth card is a heart = 1/4 + 1/4 + 1/4 + 1/4 + 1/4 = complete nonsense.

Subtractive method: the probability of drawing a non-heart from a pack on five successive occasions, i.e., first and* second and third and fourth and fifth card are all non-hearts = 3/4 x 3/4 x3/4 x 3/4 x 3/4 = 243/1024 = a little less than a quarter = bloody good sense. Subtract the non-heart probability from one and there's your answer.

What subject would you like to teach me about next (bearing in mind I'm not as fit as I was)?



* you multiply "ands" and add "ors"

pah this is childs play.