Contingency table math review: `mathjax` v.s. code v.s. reference about scores

[nikeethr]

@tennlee I've reviewed the code, equations and mathjax - I could not find any issues. (Just waiting on your cross-review of the heidke skill score mathjax and we're all good.)

Since this is a math review, real world testing (and boundary tests like divide by 0) are out of scope.

As a side note, I found it interesting that there are different representations of the more complicated skill scores. An optional suggestion (if it isn't already implemented) would be to add unit tests that check the alternative representations for the more complicated scores against each other; this would also automatically serve as a "sense check" for the equivalence of simpler scores. However, this a "nice to have" and not mandatory for v1.0.

[tennlee]

Fantastic, thank you so much for doing that review, really appreciate it.
Over time, we should possibly add additional edge case / boundary case testing, but the notebooks and manual usage all add non-automated coverage.

[tennlee]

As far as I can tell, with the merge of Heidke's Skill Score, this is all done. I'll leave it to you to confirm and close when you are ready however.

[nikeethr]

Review is complete - closing.