Today’s “More or Less” looks at whether - after successfully predicting the results of the London Mayoral election - Internet-based opinion polls are the future. Also, 400,000 rejected votes in that election: is the British National Party justified in saying something fishy is afoot?

Also, is it really true that the death rate rises when doctors are on strike?  And we may also be asking how anyone figures out the street price of drugs.

4.30pm BST, Radio 4 - or thereafter streaming from the website.

Today’s “More or Less” looks at the mathematics of The Simpsons, whether Whitehall II was wrong to say that if you have little control over your working life, that may cause you to have heart trouble, and the promise and perils of “sentiment surveys”. And, of course, more about which town has the most pubs in Britain.

4.30pm BST, Radio 4 - or thereafter streaming from the website.

Today’s “More or Less” asks “Has global warming stopped?”, as well investigating how global temperatures are measured. Also breakfast cereal and the sex of your new baby; which town has the most pubs in Britain; and can Hillary win?

4.30pm BST, Radio 4 - or thereafter streaming from the website.

Today’s “More or Less” covers fantasy takeover valuations (featuring my colleague John Gapper, for real this time), immigration and crime, music and maths, and whether the official inflation figures are a fudge.

4.30pm BST, Radio 4 - or thereafter streaming from the website.

Today’s “More or Less” asks whether it matters who your child goes to school with, and explores the mathematical legacy of Gary Gygax with Michael Gove MP and Ian Livingstone of “Fighting Fantasy” fame. 4.30pm BST, Radio 4 - or thereafter streaming from the website. Photo: Scogle.

“More or Less” is back on Radio 4, 4.30pm today (BST); I’ll be presenting and John Gapper will be a contributor to today’s show. Today’s program will (probably) ask why numerology has such wide appeal, whether antidepressants actually work, once we look at unpublished trial data as well as published data, and whether it is really true that the living outnumber the dead. You can also listen online or subscribe to a podcast.

We ask what a dollar a day really means (more on that here), whether we should pay any attention to dietary advice aimed at preventing cancer, and news that one of the world’s leading cryptographers thinks that the world’s encryption systems - which he developed - may not work. As always, details and podcast to appear here shortly; broadcast 4.30pm GMT on Radio 4.

I neglected to alert y’all to Monday’s More or Less - which covered quants and the credit crunch, extreme weather and climate change, a 20-year old from Birmingham who solved an international mathematical puzzle - but you can download a podcast if you like.
Particularly recommended was Ruth Alexander’s experience in trying to find love using a dating algorithm:

First of all, the website invites me to answer a long questionnaire. How much reassurance do I need from a partner? How much do I give to charity? How tidy is my home?
"The majority of questions represent statements commonly heard by therapists in couples counselling," says True.com psychologist, Dr Garth Bellah.
The website then uses what statisticians call a regression equation to determine what sort of person I would be best matched with, according to my character and how that fits with historical data about other people’s relationships.
The company says it’s identified 99 distinct factors found in successful relationships. Another dating site says there are 29 - its mathematical match-making is based on research it says it’s done on 10,000 married couples.
Looking at the profiles of the men the computer highlighted for me, I was highly sceptical, bordering on horrified. But I gritted my teeth and sent a flurry of e-mails: would you like to go on a date with me and my microphone?
It turns out the compatibility test doesn’t yet measure aversion to journalists. Only two people e-mailed back - and one of those dumped me for someone else before we’d even met.
So I was left with one chance of love. And he was wearing a burgundy bow-tie and waistcoat. But our compatibility score was 94%. The computer said yes.

This was terrific radio. A fair test of the dating algorithm? No.
We were put onto the scent by Ian Ayres, author of Supercrunchers. He thinks that algorithms can do a better job than, say, friends, in finding a good love match. I am persuadable, but not convinced that the current products - which are confidential black boxes - actually do the job.
Here’s an alternative take on the maths of dating, in which I point out that we tend to adjust quickly to "market conditions" in accepting potential dates. More on that in The Logic of Life.

Today’s show covers speed cameras, counting birds to track avian epidemics, quants and the credit crunch, and a way to halve measured hospital waiting times with a spot of clever counting. Radio 4, 4.30pm today - or podcast from the website.

Update: No quants or credit crunch today; middle-class drinking instead. Credit crunch next week; sorry.

As I enter the porter’s lodge at St Hugh’s College, Oxford, I fleetingly reflect that I may be about to receive an intimidating tutorial from the college principal, Andrew Dilnot. It is not that the economist has a stern reputation, but today’s circumstances are unusual. He recently stepped down from presenting More or Less, a BBC Radio 4 series about numbers in the news. I have been recruited as the new presenter, and am ready to be patronised – or worse.

I needn’t have worried: as he strides into the lodge in a pale brown linen suit and blue tie, Dilnot’s smile is genuine enough, and as we walk together through north Oxford’s leafy residential streets, he is more eager to identify shared acquaintances in the world of economics than to lecture me on the art of radio presenting…

Read the whole piece here or in the FT on Saturday. My previous lunches have been with Gary Becker, Steven Levitt and Thomas Schelling.