On Mon, Jan 3, 2011 at 1:41 PM, Mikkel Meyer Andersen <m...@mikl.dk> wrote:
> 2011/1/3 Phil Steitz <phil.ste...@gmail.com>: > > 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. > +1 > I agree. For now we don't need them, neither in 2.2 nor 3.0. Is there > any sense in keeping them if we later on includes distributions where > it would be beneficial to have such functions, or should we simply > just add them then? > > > I am happy to keep them if I can get a clear understanding of what they mean. As I said in the original post, I think I must be missing something that makes them meaningful. If you use the definition that I gave of support, other than infinities, the endpoints are always going to be included. Could well be I am missing something. Phil > > 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 > >> > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org > >
