2011/1/3 Phil Steitz <phil.ste...@gmail.com>: > 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. No, I don't think that you've missed anything. I probably haven't given it a decent thought when I included them to begin with. So the right think is to remove those functions following the de facto definition of support.
Cheers, Mikkel. > > 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 >> >> > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org
