Jump to content

Sign in to follow this  
Eaglesham saint

Gary McKenzie

Recommended Posts

21 minutes ago, faraway saint said:

Not a lot of argument if the stats are correct but it's well documented we've rode our luck at the back on more than a few occasions and it certainly would help if we had a full squad to choose from, which would, IMO, make us an even better team. 

Do you know how long it took me to work that out ....... I only have ten fingers mate!!

No doubt someone will tell me its 66.4563% for Harry:o

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, DougJamie said:

Do you know how long it took me to work that out ....... I only have ten fingers mate!!

No doubt someone will tell me its 66.4563% for Harry:o

It's actually 66.4573% for Harry.  FFS man get a grip, do you know nothing? :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Slartibartfast said:

It's actually 66.4573% for Harry.  FFS man get a grip, do you know nothing? :)

The  shorthand used to remember the percentage of Gary Mack appearances  more accurately is , 68.27%,  the values lie within one, two and three standard deviations of the mean, respectively. In mathematical notation, these facts can be expressed as follows, where X is an observation from a normally distributed random variable  μ is the mean of the distribution, and σ is its standard deviation:

{\displaystyle {\begin{aligned}\Pr(\mu -\;\,\sigma \leq X\leq \mu +\;\,\sigma )&\approx 0.6827\\\Pr(\mu -2\sigma \leq X\leq \mu +2\sigma )&\approx 0.9545\\\Pr(\mu -3\sigma \leq X\leq \mu +3\sigma )&\approx 0.9973\end{aligned}}}{\displaystyle {\begin{aligned}\Pr(\mu -\;\,\sigma \leq X\leq \mu +\;\,\sigma )&\approx 0.6827\\\Pr(\mu -2\sigma \leq X\leq \mu +2\sigma )&\approx 0.9545\\\Pr(\mu -3\sigma \leq X\leq \mu +3\sigma )&\approx 0.9973\end{aligned}}}
 
 
HOPE THAT CLEARS THINGS UP

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Call me naive if you like but I still think the official club statement of his injury is plausible enough not to doubt there maybe more to it. I'd just like to know what information anyone has to back up this rumour. There is speculation and there is speculation - mental health just isn't something I think people should be speculating about especially when we have an official statement stating exactly where Gary is injury wise. Bottom line is we will be a better team when he is back fully fit and playing.

I agree with your sentiments. However, if there were any mental health issues and I'm of the opinion that there aren't, I just don't believe that the club would make an announcement. Anyway, the most important matter is getting him back to full fitness along with Davis, who happily seems to have turned the corner, which will please the majority of the people that follow the club.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
51 minutes ago, Slartibartfast said:

It's actually 66.4573% for Harry.  FFS man get a grip, do you know nothing? :)

This man is an island- which means that I am a continuous mass of land surrounded by water apparently. Yup that kinda of sums up my rounds of golf:D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
45 minutes ago, East Lothian Saint said:

The  shorthand used to remember the percentage of Gary Mack appearances  more accurately is , 68.27%,  the values lie within one, two and three standard deviations of the mean, respectively. In mathematical notation, these facts can be expressed as follows, where X is an observation from a normally distributed random variable  μ is the mean of the distribution, and σ is its standard deviation:

{\displaystyle {\begin{aligned}\Pr(\mu -\;\,\sigma \leq X\leq \mu +\;\,\sigma )&\approx 0.6827\\\Pr(\mu -2\sigma \leq X\leq \mu +2\sigma )&\approx 0.9545\\\Pr(\mu -3\sigma \leq X\leq \mu +3\sigma )&\approx 0.9973\end{aligned}}}{\displaystyle {\begin{aligned}\Pr(\mu -\;\,\sigma \leq X\leq \mu +\;\,\sigma )&\approx 0.6827\\\Pr(\mu -2\sigma \leq X\leq \mu +2\sigma )&\approx 0.9545\\\Pr(\mu -3\sigma \leq X\leq \mu +3\sigma )&\approx 0.9973\end{aligned}}}
 
 
HOPE THAT CLEARS THINGS UP

Obviously I was just being silly and took no time to attempt a calculation.

I am assuming that you are being equally as silly since you don't need to calculate the probability of something that has already happened.  What the probability of it happening is, before it has happened/not happened, is a different matter.  Also the % of his appearances would be a simple matter of division/multiplication.

Edited by Slartibartfast

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, DougJamie said:

This man is an island- which means that I am a continuous mass of land surrounded by water apparently. Yup that kinda of sums up my rounds of golf:D

No, you weren't told that you were an island, you were told that you looked like an island due to the size of the puddle of your own pish you were standing in. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Slartibartfast said:

No, you weren't told that you were an island, you were told that you looked like an island due to the size of the puddle of your own pish you were standing in. :)

Naw I stand well clear of the lampposts these days

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, East Lothian Saint said:

The  shorthand used to remember the percentage of Gary Mack appearances  more accurately is , 68.27%,  the values lie within one, two and three standard deviations of the mean, respectively. In mathematical notation, these facts can be expressed as follows, where X is an observation from a normally distributed random variable  μ is the mean of the distribution, and σ is its standard deviation:

{\displaystyle {\begin{aligned}\Pr(\mu -\;\,\sigma \leq X\leq \mu +\;\,\sigma )&\approx 0.6827\\\Pr(\mu -2\sigma \leq X\leq \mu +2\sigma )&\approx 0.9545\\\Pr(\mu -3\sigma \leq X\leq \mu +3\sigma )&\approx 0.9973\end{aligned}}}{\displaystyle {\begin{aligned}\Pr(\mu -\;\,\sigma \leq X\leq \mu +\;\,\sigma )&\approx 0.6827\\\Pr(\mu -2\sigma \leq X\leq \mu +2\sigma )&\approx 0.9545\\\Pr(\mu -3\sigma \leq X\leq \mu +3\sigma )&\approx 0.9973\end{aligned}}}
 
 
HOPE THAT CLEARS THINGS UP

Image result for longest math equation with answerBollocks East ur 0.03% out FFS

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, ReturnOf isma is god said:

I can tell yous how to make a calculator say boobies 

 

What do you do for the e ? A 6 or a 3 ? 

It works better for just 80085 .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, East Lothian Saint said:

The  shorthand used to remember the percentage of Gary Mack appearances  more accurately is , 68.27%,  the values lie within one, two and three standard deviations of the mean, respectively. In mathematical notation, these facts can be expressed as follows, where X is an observation from a normally distributed random variable  μ is the mean of the distribution, and σ is its standard deviation:

{\displaystyle {\begin{aligned}\Pr(\mu -\;\,\sigma \leq X\leq \mu +\;\,\sigma )&\approx 0.6827\\\Pr(\mu -2\sigma \leq X\leq \mu +2\sigma )&\approx 0.9545\\\Pr(\mu -3\sigma \leq X\leq \mu +3\sigma )&\approx 0.9973\end{aligned}}}{\displaystyle {\begin{aligned}\Pr(\mu -\;\,\sigma \leq X\leq \mu +\;\,\sigma )&\approx 0.6827\\\Pr(\mu -2\sigma \leq X\leq \mu +2\sigma )&\approx 0.9545\\\Pr(\mu -3\sigma \leq X\leq \mu +3\sigma )&\approx 0.9973\end{aligned}}}
 
 
HOPE THAT CLEARS THINGS UP

Did you actually type that in Latex?  :lol:

This forum is finally starting to show signs of a bit of intelligence. :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

Sign in to follow this  

×