On Mon, Jan 3, 2011 at 2:23 AM, Mikkel Meyer Andersen <m...@mikl.dk> wrote:
> Hi, > > You're right, Phil. Support for beta is [0, 1] and not (0, 1) as stated on > Wikipedia. As you mention, support for continuous distributions is closed, > hence the corresponding isInclusive-functions can be discussed. I thought > about it being useful for infinity, but we could let users deal with this > themselves? > Yeah, sorry I missed this before. It hit me when I was working on the 2_X retrofit and it looked like Beta was wrong (I see now Wikipedia seems to be using some other definition - or is just wrong). I dropped the inclusive/exclusive functions there. I think in the discrete case, this can be handled by convention and the only issue there is the same as the continuous one - infinities - but these are all the same. So I propose that we drop these functions in 3.0 as well. The isSupportConnected property still logically makes sense; though it is always true for the 2_X distributions, so I dropped it there. Phil > > Cheers, Mikkel. > Den 02/01/2011 23.05 skrev "Phil Steitz" <phil.ste...@gmail.com>: > > We don't precisely define what we mean by the support of a distribution > > anywhere. I have been assuming that we mean the smallest closed set such > > that its complement has probability 0. This would make, for example, the > > support of the Beta distribution [0, 1] independent of the parameters. > But > > then isSupportLowerBoundInclusive currently returns false for Beta. I > must > > have one of the concepts wrong. Could it be that the > > upper/lowerboundInclusive attributes are only meaningful in the discrete > > case? > > > > Phil >
