> Alan G Isaac wrote:
>> I would think that
>> multinomial(1,prob,size=ntrials).sum(axis=0)
>> would be equivalent to
>> multinomial(ntrials,prob)
>> but the first gives a surprising result. (See below.)
>> Explanation?
On Wed, 05 Dec 2007, Robert Kern apparently wrote:
> Pretty much
Alan G Isaac wrote:
> I would think that
> multinomial(1,prob,size=ntrials).sum(axis=0)
> would be equivalent to
> multinomial(ntrials,prob)
> but the first gives a surprising result. (See below.)
> Explanation?
Pretty much anyone who derives their binomial distribution algorithm from
htt
Alan G Isaac wrote:
> I would think that
> multinomial(1,prob,size=ntrials).sum(axis=0)
> would be equivalent to
> multinomial(ntrials,prob)
> but the first gives a surprising result. (See below.)
> Explanation?
A bug in rk_binomial_inversion(). Unfortunately, this looks like a logical bu
I would think that
multinomial(1,prob,size=ntrials).sum(axis=0)
would be equivalent to
multinomial(ntrials,prob)
but the first gives a surprising result. (See below.)
Explanation?
Thank you,
Alan Isaac
>>> ntrials = 10
>>> prob = N.arange(100,dtype=N.float32)/4950
>>> multinomial(1,
