On Mon, Jan 3, 2011 at 2:23 AM, Mikkel Meyer Andersen <mikl@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 isInclusivefunctions 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.
Phil
>
> Cheers, Mikkel.
> Den 02/01/2011 23.05 skrev "Phil Steitz" <phil.steitz@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
>
