Dear Nick,
thanks a lot for making it simpler than I was figured out it to be.
I agree with you about the theoretical endless row of defined functions
which may be included in a statistical package: a reasonable compromise
between users'neeeds and their statistical background is the way to go for
delivering an effective and efficient software.
Kind Regards,
Carlo
-----Messaggio originale-----
Da: [email protected]
[mailto:[email protected]] Per conto di Nick Cox
Inviato: domenica 29 giugno 2008 17.27
A: [email protected]
Oggetto: RE: st: probability mass function for a binomial distribution
What is available as a defined function shows up a trade-off problem. It
wouldn't be difficult to define a thousand functions, but then some
people might complain about the complexity of the list and the
difficulty of finding a solution.
Otherwise put, I guess the answer to Carlo's question is that Stata
users -- unlike spreadsheet users, it seems --- are paid the compliment
of knowing enough statistics to work this out from first principles:
gen double bmp = p^k * (1 - p)^(20 - k) * comb(20, k)
Note in passing two other details:
I prefer to use -double-s here.
Putting constants into variables isn't necessary:
gen double bmp = 0.2^k * 0.8^(20 - k) * comb(20, k)
In cases like this the advantage of a canned function over a one-line
solution using another canned function would be pretty small.
Nick
[email protected]
[previous message deleted to avoid Buffer overrun warning]
*
* For searches and help try:
* http://www.stata.com/support/faqs/res/findit.html
* http://www.stata.com/support/statalist/faq
* http://www.ats.ucla.edu/stat/stata/
