[Roger Hunter]

(02-09-2017, 05:42 PM)Duffy Wrote: Hi Brian

Its good to hear from you, thank you for taking the time to give a very thorough explanation, of the meaning of these words. I now understand why Roger and I have been having some problems.  Chance in my vocabulary, as an ordinary member of the public has meant insignificant or nothing to gain. So when Roger has been telling me "chance", I have interpreted this as meaningless or why should I be bothering.  I will consult your description before I make assumptions again in future.  I never did have a knack for tossing coins, but I have gotten pretty good at counting to 10 ... probably the reason why we remained civilised  .  Thanks again

Roger

I think we both got backed into a corner over this, and didn't realise it.  I cannot guarantee this won't happen again, but at least we learn something each time . I'll send you my friends recipe for mulled wine, as way of an apology ... how'd that be ?

Odds 0.636 ... does this mean I keep looking ?


Duffy

Duffy;

Along the lines that Brian laid out I ran my program with different bandwidths to show how the curve looks.
The width I'm quoting is half width in degrees so 0.1 means +/- 0.1 or 0.2 degrees total

With a zero width there were no hits.
With 0.10 there were 169 hits for 0.215 odds on a hit
With 0.25 there were 321 hits for 0.409 odds on a hit
With 0.50 there were 489 hits for 0.636 odds on a hit
With 1.00 there were 655 hits for 0.834 odds on a hit
With 1.50 there were 719 hits for 0.916 odds on a hit
With 2.00 there were 853 hits for 0.959 odds on a hit
With 2.50 there were 769 hits for 0.980 odds on a hit

Now you can compare your results to see if you're doing better than chance. If not, your results do not show any merit.

The program makes this sort of analysis possible. Each run looking at over 72,000 quakes takes about 6 seconds.

Roger