From: <p.dalgaard_at_biostat.ku.dk>

Date: Sun 05 Feb 2006 - 00:33:31 GMT

Date: Sun 05 Feb 2006 - 00:33:31 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-develReceived on Sun Feb 05 11:39:25 2006

*
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8
: Sun 05 Feb 2006 - 12:20:14 GMT
*