## [Maxima-bugs] [ maxima-Bugs-3560390 ] negative_binomial overly retrictive

 [Maxima-bugs] [ maxima-Bugs-3560390 ] negative_binomial overly retrictive From: SourceForge.net - 2012-08-21 15:42:07 ```Bugs item #3560390, was opened at 2012-08-21 08:42 Message generated for change (Tracker Item Submitted) made by statsman You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=104933&aid=3560390&group_id=4933 Please note that this message will contain a full copy of the comment thread, including the initial issue submission, for this request, not just the latest update. Category: None Group: None Status: Open Resolution: None Priority: 5 Private: No Submitted By: Jerry W. Lewis (statsman) Assigned to: Nobody/Anonymous (nobody) Summary: negative_binomial overly retrictive Initial Comment: The negative binomial distribution need not be restricted to integer values of the argument n; cf. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_binomial_distribution Indeed, the noninteger case as an overdispersed generalization of the Poisson distribution is important in many fields, including ecology, environmental monitoring, epidemiology, industrial safety, insurance, medicine, microbiology, etc. Here are function definitions for the general negative binomial pdf and cdf pdf_negative_binomial2(x,n,p) := pdf_beta(p,n,x+1)*p/(n+x)\$ /* negative binomial for real n>0 */ cdf_negative_binomial2(x,n,p) := cdf_beta(p,n,x+1)\$ /* negative binomial for real n>0 */ The functions for mean, var, std, skewness, and kurtosis should be fine if you just remove the trap for non-integer n. Assuming that the quantile function numerically inverts the cdf, then it would likely be fine too. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=104933&aid=3560390&group_id=4933 ```

 [Maxima-bugs] [ maxima-Bugs-3560390 ] negative_binomial overly retrictive From: SourceForge.net - 2012-08-21 15:42:07 ```Bugs item #3560390, was opened at 2012-08-21 08:42 Message generated for change (Tracker Item Submitted) made by statsman You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=104933&aid=3560390&group_id=4933 Please note that this message will contain a full copy of the comment thread, including the initial issue submission, for this request, not just the latest update. Category: None Group: None Status: Open Resolution: None Priority: 5 Private: No Submitted By: Jerry W. Lewis (statsman) Assigned to: Nobody/Anonymous (nobody) Summary: negative_binomial overly retrictive Initial Comment: The negative binomial distribution need not be restricted to integer values of the argument n; cf. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_binomial_distribution Indeed, the noninteger case as an overdispersed generalization of the Poisson distribution is important in many fields, including ecology, environmental monitoring, epidemiology, industrial safety, insurance, medicine, microbiology, etc. Here are function definitions for the general negative binomial pdf and cdf pdf_negative_binomial2(x,n,p) := pdf_beta(p,n,x+1)*p/(n+x)\$ /* negative binomial for real n>0 */ cdf_negative_binomial2(x,n,p) := cdf_beta(p,n,x+1)\$ /* negative binomial for real n>0 */ The functions for mean, var, std, skewness, and kurtosis should be fine if you just remove the trap for non-integer n. Assuming that the quantile function numerically inverts the cdf, then it would likely be fine too. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=104933&aid=3560390&group_id=4933 ```