Re: [office-formula] GAMMADIST function's mathematical formula

[Andreas J Guelzow <aguelzow@math.concordia.ab.ca>]

On Thu, 2008-04-03 at 18:36 -0400, David A. Wheeler wrote:
> Eike Rathke:
> > Implementation
> > GAMMADIST(2;3;5;FALSE()) returns 0.010725
> > 
> > whereas our definition
> > GAMMADIST(2;3;5;FALSE()) would return 0.01134998
> > 
> > I propose to change our definition to reflect reality of common
> > implementation.
> 
> Gnumeric 1.6.3 replies with 0.010725 as well.
> 
> Unless someone raises a good objection/explanation, I agree, I think
> we should change it just as Eike has proposed.  Anyone have an
> objection?

No objection on my part. (Mathematically it doesn't matter whether we
use \alpha and \beta or \alpha and 1/\beta as parameters. Since
everybody seems to implement the \alpha and \beta version it makes sense
to use that for the standard.)

Andreas
> 

-- 
"Liberty consists less in acting according to
one's own pleasure, than in not being subject 
to the will and pleasure of other people. It 
consists also in our not subjecting the wills 
of other people to our own."  Rousseau


Prof. Dr. Andreas J. Guelzow
Dept. of Mathematical & Computing Sciences
Concordia University College of Alberta