Re: [Rd] pbinom with size argument 0 (PR#8560)

From: Peter Dalgaard <p.dalgaard_at_biostat.ku.dk>
Date: Sun 05 Feb 2006 - 00:33:05 GMT

P Ehlers <ehlers@math.ucalgary.ca> writes:

> I prefer a (consistent) NaN. What happens to our notion of a
> Binomial RV as a sequence of Bernoulli RVs if we permit n=0?
> I have never seen (nor contemplated, I confess) the definition
> of a Bernoulli RV as anything other than some dichotomous-outcome
> one-trial random experiment.

What's the problem ??

An n=0 binomial is the sum of an empty set of Bernoulli RV's, and the sum over an empty set is identically 0.

> Not n trials, where n might equal zero,
> but _one_ trial. I can't see what would be gained by permitting a
> zero-trial experiment. If we assign probability 1 to each outcome,
> we have a problem with the sum of the probabilities.

Consistency is what you gain. E.g.

 binom(.,n=n1+n2,p) == binom(.,n=n1,p) * binom(.,n=n2,p)

where * denotes convolution. This will also hold for n1=0 or n2=0 if the binomial in that case is defined as a one-point distribution at zero. Same thing as any(logical(0)) etc., really.

-- 
   O__  ---- Peter Dalgaard             Øster Farimagsgade 5, Entr.B
  c/ /'_ --- Dept. of Biostatistics     PO Box 2099, 1014 Cph. K
 (*) \(*) -- University of Copenhagen   Denmark          Ph:  (+45) 35327918
~~~~~~~~~~ - (p.dalgaard@biostat.ku.dk)                  FAX: (+45) 35327907

______________________________________________
R-devel@r-project.org mailing list
https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel
Received on Mon Feb 06 20:39:00 2006

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Mon 20 Feb 2006 - 03:21:40 GMT