Difference between revisions of "Talk:Negative hypergeometric distribution"
From Encyclopedia of Mathematics
(not now) |
Erel Segal (talk | contribs) |
||
| Line 5: | Line 5: | ||
::::Yes, this looks much nicer. While we are at it: I did not understand why this formula is correct. Can you please add an intuitive explanation? Also, I didn't understand the formula at the bottom, connecting the negative-hypergeometric with the hypergeometric. Can you explain this too? --[[User:Erel Segal|Erel Segal]] ([[User talk:Erel Segal|talk]]) 08:25, 25 March 2015 (CET) | ::::Yes, this looks much nicer. While we are at it: I did not understand why this formula is correct. Can you please add an intuitive explanation? Also, I didn't understand the formula at the bottom, connecting the negative-hypergeometric with the hypergeometric. Can you explain this too? --[[User:Erel Segal|Erel Segal]] ([[User talk:Erel Segal|talk]]) 08:25, 25 March 2015 (CET) | ||
:::::Wow... not now, maybe later. [[User:Boris Tsirelson|Boris Tsirelson]] ([[User talk:Boris Tsirelson|talk]]) 08:30, 25 March 2015 (CET) | :::::Wow... not now, maybe later. [[User:Boris Tsirelson|Boris Tsirelson]] ([[User talk:Boris Tsirelson|talk]]) 08:30, 25 March 2015 (CET) | ||
| + | |||
| + | The PMF formula (*) is suspicious. If m<N, then k+m-N<k, so the top-left factor is zero! --[[User:Erel Segal|Erel Segal]] ([[User talk:Erel Segal|talk]]) 19:23, 25 March 2015 (CET) | ||
Revision as of 18:23, 25 March 2015
The PDF formula refers to the parameter n, which is undefined. This is probably a typo. --Erel Segal (talk) 15:15, 23 March 2015 (CET)
- Typo, indeed. It should be $N$, not $n$. Thank you. Would you like to fix it yourself? --Boris Tsirelson (talk) 18:08, 23 March 2015 (CET)
- The equation was an image I could not edit, so I replaced it with a latex equation - I hope I did this right. --Erel Segal (talk) 20:31, 24 March 2015 (CET)
- Yes, this is one of our problems; you could look at Help:HowTo EoM, or just see some new articles made in TeX. Anyway, I did it a bit nicer. Boris Tsirelson (talk) 08:17, 25 March 2015 (CET)
- Yes, this looks much nicer. While we are at it: I did not understand why this formula is correct. Can you please add an intuitive explanation? Also, I didn't understand the formula at the bottom, connecting the negative-hypergeometric with the hypergeometric. Can you explain this too? --Erel Segal (talk) 08:25, 25 March 2015 (CET)
- Wow... not now, maybe later. Boris Tsirelson (talk) 08:30, 25 March 2015 (CET)
- Yes, this looks much nicer. While we are at it: I did not understand why this formula is correct. Can you please add an intuitive explanation? Also, I didn't understand the formula at the bottom, connecting the negative-hypergeometric with the hypergeometric. Can you explain this too? --Erel Segal (talk) 08:25, 25 March 2015 (CET)
- Yes, this is one of our problems; you could look at Help:HowTo EoM, or just see some new articles made in TeX. Anyway, I did it a bit nicer. Boris Tsirelson (talk) 08:17, 25 March 2015 (CET)
- The equation was an image I could not edit, so I replaced it with a latex equation - I hope I did this right. --Erel Segal (talk) 20:31, 24 March 2015 (CET)
The PMF formula (*) is suspicious. If m<N, then k+m-N<k, so the top-left factor is zero! --Erel Segal (talk) 19:23, 25 March 2015 (CET)
How to Cite This Entry:
Negative hypergeometric distribution. Encyclopedia of Mathematics. URL: http://encyclopediaofmath.org/index.php?title=Negative_hypergeometric_distribution&oldid=36356
Negative hypergeometric distribution. Encyclopedia of Mathematics. URL: http://encyclopediaofmath.org/index.php?title=Negative_hypergeometric_distribution&oldid=36356