rbinom silently rounds size argument (PR#1377) - R-devel

Wed, Mar 13, 2002 2:05 AM #

Fixed for 1.5.0.  Note that pbinom and qbinom did it too.

On Tue, 12 Mar 2002 bolker@zoo.ufl.edu wrote:

Brian D. Ripley,                  ripley@stats.ox.ac.uk
Professor of Applied Statistics,  http://www.stats.ox.ac.uk/~ripley/
University of Oxford,             Tel:  +44 1865 272861 (self)
1 South Parks Road,                     +44 1865 272860 (secr)
Oxford OX1 3TG, UK                Fax:  +44 1865 272595


-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-
r-devel mailing list -- Read http://www.ci.tuwien.ac.at/~hornik/R/R-FAQ.html
Send "info", "help", or "[un]subscribe"
(in the "body", not the subject !)  To: r-devel-request@stat.math.ethz.ch
_._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._

Thomas Lumley

Wed, Mar 13, 2002 9:04 AM #

On Wed, 13 Mar 2002 ripley@stats.ox.ac.uk wrote:

But isn't it right for pbinom and qbinom to do it?  P(X<=4.5) is a
perfectly reasonable quantity and is equal to P(X<=4) if X is binomial and
(with rounding the other way) the same for quantile functions.

dbinom, OTOH, is a density wrt counting measure and is not defined for
non-integers (though one could make a case for zero).

	-thomas

-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-
r-devel mailing list -- Read http://www.ci.tuwien.ac.at/~hornik/R/R-FAQ.html
Send "info", "help", or "[un]subscribe"
(in the "body", not the subject !)  To: r-devel-request@stat.math.ethz.ch
_._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._

Brian Ripley

Wed, Mar 13, 2002 9:17 AM #

Read the subject again, please.

pbinom(2, size=4.1, p=0.5)

makes no sense, but R 1.4.1 gave the result for (2, 4, 0.5) (and S+6 gives
NA).

On Wed, 13 Mar 2002, Thomas Lumley wrote:

Brian D. Ripley,                  ripley@stats.ox.ac.uk
Professor of Applied Statistics,  http://www.stats.ox.ac.uk/~ripley/
University of Oxford,             Tel:  +44 1865 272861 (self)
1 South Parks Road,                     +44 1865 272860 (secr)
Oxford OX1 3TG, UK                Fax:  +44 1865 272595

-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-
r-devel mailing list -- Read http://www.ci.tuwien.ac.at/~hornik/R/R-FAQ.html
Send "info", "help", or "[un]subscribe"
(in the "body", not the subject !)  To: r-devel-request@stat.math.ethz.ch
_._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._

Thomas Lumley

Wed, Mar 13, 2002 9:23 AM #

On Wed, 13 Mar 2002 ripley@stats.ox.ac.uk wrote:

Yes. Of course. Sorry.

	-thomas


-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-
r-devel mailing list -- Read http://www.ci.tuwien.ac.at/~hornik/R/R-FAQ.html
Send "info", "help", or "[un]subscribe"
(in the "body", not the subject !)  To: r-devel-request@stat.math.ethz.ch
_._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._