3.5.2. Hypergeometric Probability Distribution

Поделиться
HTML-код
  • Опубликовано: 1 дек 2024

Комментарии • 27

  • @h.a.b.5951
    @h.a.b.5951 3 года назад +9

    Incredible explanation! You are one of the few professional videos that I ever watched!

  • @boonsiem1316
    @boonsiem1316 4 года назад +32

    Sheldon cooper??

  • @AGinzex
    @AGinzex Год назад +1

    credit to Dr. Kash Barker for explaining this concept with such clarity

  • @theodoresweger4948
    @theodoresweger4948 2 года назад +2

    Very well done it took a little while to sink in but now understand, Thanks very much..

  • @annang.3176
    @annang.3176 10 месяцев назад

    Great explanation! Greetings from Germany

  • @nelsonjaykan2264
    @nelsonjaykan2264 4 года назад +3

    Thank you, you helped a lot! Cheers from Paris

  • @GeneralMagiber
    @GeneralMagiber 2 года назад

    Nice explanation! I would just suggest see expected value as 3/9 * 5 (prob of chemist times iterations).
    Great content!

  • @samiasamssoume4752
    @samiasamssoume4752 Год назад

    Why in some references they indicate
    n (N1/N) as expected value formula for hypergeometric distribution and others indicate n(k/N) expected value formula, how we choose between them?

  • @Kusagrass
    @Kusagrass Год назад

    Enjoy your time in Vegas.

  • @EmanueleBonardi80
    @EmanueleBonardi80 6 месяцев назад

    I still can't understand the formula.
    How come the Cn(N,n) value can be the "total" number of possible outcomes for an extraction of n b-w (black white, chemists/physicists ) COLOURED items out of N possibile items ?
    It is just a number that represents how we can choose n items from N items .. no matter their "colour"is
    I don't understand how Cn(N,n) can be representative of ALL POSSIBLE CASES .. if it does not contain any information about the colour.
    EDIT: I got it.. items are all distinguishable inside their category.
    So that Cn(N, n) represent the number counting all the way n elements can be picked out from N elements, because they are all unique.
    It would be wrong if - for each group of success or failure - we had indistinguishable elements.

  • @Hinchey613
    @Hinchey613 2 года назад

    Thanks for this clear explanation

  • @tokamaher169
    @tokamaher169 3 года назад

    thank youuuu,cheers from egypt

  • @bGlennjamin
    @bGlennjamin 5 лет назад +2

    Well done.

  • @EmanueleBonardi80
    @EmanueleBonardi80 6 месяцев назад

    You should point out that Chemists and Physicists are distinguishable. It is not obvious at all.

  • @AlanEngsf
    @AlanEngsf 4 года назад +3

    I think 5:00 should say 6 physicists, not 9

    • @yaweli2968
      @yaweli2968 3 года назад

      It’s a slip of tongue. He already stressed it’s 6 physicists throughout the video.

  • @Joshua8224
    @Joshua8224 3 года назад

    thank you

  • @mahreevila4153
    @mahreevila4153 4 года назад +1

    Nice

  • @SA-ys9tl
    @SA-ys9tl 2 года назад

    nice video cheers from 武汉科技大学黄家湖校区南三舍105寝

  • @snehilsingh4572
    @snehilsingh4572 3 года назад

    great

  • @ঠোটকাটা-ত৯ন
    @ঠোটকাটা-ত৯ন 4 года назад +1

    From Department of Physex!

  • @usagi4342
    @usagi4342 3 года назад

    thankssssssssssssssssssss

  • @francomenchaca853
    @francomenchaca853 2 года назад

    Good video but smile is for free

  • @andydavidson3097
    @andydavidson3097 4 года назад +1

    gives me motion sickness. presentation is wiggly

  • @victorchuma3687
    @victorchuma3687 3 года назад

    Thank you