Inverse binomial  Printable Version + HP Forums (https://archived.hpcalc.org/museumforum) + Forum: HP Museum Forums (https://archived.hpcalc.org/museumforum/forum1.html) + Forum: Old HP Forum Archives (https://archived.hpcalc.org/museumforum/forum2.html) + Thread: Inverse binomial (/thread246145.html) 
Inverse binomial  Richard Berler  07072013 1) On both my emulator and my physical unit, inverse binomial with p=.5 stored in j, n=10 stored in k for .005 yields 10. I was expecting 0 or possibly 1. .006 correctly produces an answer of 1. 2) On my emulator when trying large n such as 1 E 06, inverse binomial p=.5, n (k)=1 E 06 for .75 produces 500337. My physical unit produces "reset". The physical unit will come up with a proper result for .75=501288.
2) might be due to older version (3.1 3278)
Re: Inverse binomial  Richard Berler  07072013 Physical unit produces correct answer of 501288 for .995 (not the .75 that I accidentally reported).
Re: Inverse binomial  Marcus von Cube, Germany  07082013 I'm not the one to answer your question about the proper results, but "reset" is definitely not the intended answer. It looks like another internal stack overflow issue or the like.
Re: Inverse binomial  Nick_S  07082013 Using the R statistical package I get a value of 1 for your first example
qbinom(.005,10,.5) and 500337 for your second example
qbinom(.75,1e6,.5) Nick
Edited: 10 July 2013, 11:28 a.m.
Re: Inverse binomial  Walter B  07082013 Hi Richard, Thanks for reporting. Your observation 1) is definitively a bug. Even 0.0051 Binom^(1) returns 1. I guess the cause is some internal rounding or truncating.
d:)
Re: Inverse binomial  Paul Dale  07082013 I think we should fix the memory/stack overflow/corruption bug 2 before jumping to any conclusions about the cause of 1.
 Pauli
Re: Inverse binomial  Walter B  07082013 I concur. Go ahead!
d:)
Re: Inverse binomial  Marcus von Cube, Germany  07092013 The "Reset" proved to be the watch dog kicking in. I've added another call to service the watch dog in the code and the "Reset" seems to be gone. Maybe Pauli can find a way to speed up the calculation a little. It just took too long...
