On Mon, Jan 3, 2011 at 2:04 PM, Ted Dunning <ted.dunn...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I don't think you are missing anything. Moreover, I think that wikipedia > just has an error in this regard. > > Following their chain of definitions leads to this example: > > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Support_(measure_theory)#A_uniform_distribution<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Support_%28measure_theory%29#A_uniform_distribution> > > If the uniform distribution on the open interval (0,1) has the closed set > [0,1] as its support then the beta distribution > obviously does as well. In fact, the definition they use starts with "The > largest closed set ...". > > Yes. We should probably state somewhere in the javadoc that we are using that definition. A possible modification that would make the Wikipedia Beta example make sense (but make the Uniform example wrong ;) would be to consider whether or not the endpoints are in the domain of the density function. I don't see that info as adding a lot of value, so am +1 for just dropping the isXxxIncluded properties, but leaving isSupportConnected in place. Phil > On Mon, Jan 3, 2011 at 11:00 AM, Mikkel Meyer Andersen <m...@mikl.dk> > wrote: > > > > I am happy to keep them if I can get a clear understanding of what they > > > mean. As I said in the original post, I think I must be missing > > something > > > that makes them meaningful. If you use the definition that I gave of > > > support, other than infinities, the endpoints are always going to be > > > included. Could well be I am missing something. > > No, I don't think that you've missed anything. I probably haven't > > given it a decent thought when I included them to begin with. So the > > right think is to remove those functions following the de facto > > definition of support. > > >
