4 ms·
Sure, I guess I'm just arguing that even if you overlook that detail, then your intuition should tell you that the balls having a binomial distribution is suspe
by tines 3y ago
Sure, I guess I'm just arguing that even if you overlook that detail, then your intuition should tell you that the balls having a binomial distribution is suspect, i.e. you have to overlook a small thing and a big thing to misunderstand, and given that, I don't think the question is ambiguous. All good though.
- danielmarkbruce 3y agoI don't think that's right though, I don't think "chosen" implies what you are saying. An existing binomial distribution could exist and you just choose n from it. You wouldn't have to "generate" the distribution. To me "chosen" and "sampled" would mean the same, and it wouldn't be weird to say "n was sampled from a binomial distribution"
- tines 3y agoI think I see what you mean now, and I understand that that would be possible. Wouldn't you need some extra parameters if it were a binomial distribution though? For a uniform distribution every item is equiprobable (i.e. there's only one uniform distribution for a given N) but there are many binomial distributions possible for a given N. (Disclaimer, I know very little about statistics.) So the fact that you aren't given those parameters in the question means you can't make much of a prediction if it were binomial. Edit: I read that binomial distributions are parameterized on both the number of trials and the probability of the two outcomes, so that kind of demonstrates my point doesn't it? You're not given the probability of Red and Green for the binomial distribution, so you can't really answer the question that way. You could assume it's 50/50, but that's an assumption that isn't justified by the question.