[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[Octave-bug-tracker] [bug #43721] binocdf - cumulative distribution func
|
From: |
Avinoam Kalma |
|
Subject: |
[Octave-bug-tracker] [bug #43721] binocdf - cumulative distribution functions lack "upper" argument |
|
Date: |
Sun, 30 Nov 2014 20:08:42 +0000 |
|
User-agent: |
Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/39.0.2171.71 Safari/537.36 |
Follow-up Comment #5, bug #43721 (project octave):
Hi,
better than my quick & dirty patch :-)
We should add
## @deftypefnx {Function File} {} binocdf (@var{x}, @var{n}, @var{p},
"upper")
and some explanation about the "upper" paameter. I will try
to write something.
Is there a way to know in advance which of
betainc (p, x + 1, n - x)
betainc (1 - p, n - x, x + 1)
Has a better accuracy? We can use it also for the non-lower case.
Avinoam
_______________________________________________________
Reply to this item at:
<http://savannah.gnu.org/bugs/?43721>
_______________________________________________
Message sent via/by Savannah
http://savannah.gnu.org/