{"action":"opened","issue":{"url":"https://api.github.com/repos/numpy/numpy/issues/12050","repository_url":"https://api.github.com/repos/numpy/numpy","labels_url":"https://api.github.com/repos/numpy/numpy/issues/12050/labels{/name}","comments_url":"https://api.github.com/repos/numpy/numpy/issues/12050/comments","events_url":"https://api.github.com/repos/numpy/numpy/issues/12050/events","html_url":"https://github.com/numpy/numpy/issues/12050","id":364966922,"node_id":"MDU6SXNzdWUzNjQ5NjY5MjI=","number":12050,"title":"Documentation for numpy.random.hypergeometric is confusing and, in places, incorrect","user":{"login":"glinka","id":4186510,"node_id":"MDQ6VXNlcjQxODY1MTA=","avatar_url":"https://avatars2.githubusercontent.com/u/4186510?v=4","gravatar_id":"","url":"https://api.github.com/users/glinka","html_url":"https://github.com/glinka","followers_url":"https://api.github.com/users/glinka/followers","following_url":"https://api.github.com/users/glinka/following{/other_user}","gists_url":"https://api.github.com/users/glinka/gists{/gist_id}","starred_url":"https://api.github.com/users/glinka/starred{/owner}{/repo}","subscriptions_url":"https://api.github.com/users/glinka/subscriptions","organizations_url":"https://api.github.com/users/glinka/orgs","repos_url":"https://api.github.com/users/glinka/repos","events_url":"https://api.github.com/users/glinka/events{/privacy}","received_events_url":"https://api.github.com/users/glinka/received_events","type":"User","site_admin":false},"labels":[],"state":"open","locked":false,"assignee":null,"assignees":[],"milestone":null,"comments":0,"created_at":"2018-09-28T16:54:43Z","updated_at":"2018-09-28T16:54:43Z","closed_at":null,"author_association":"NONE","body":"<!-- Please describe the issue in detail here, and fill in the fields below -->\r\n\r\nIt is unclear from the [documentation](https://docs.scipy.org/doc/numpy-1.15.1/reference/generated/numpy.random.hypergeometric.html) whether numpy.random.hypergeometric is returning the number of \"good\" or \"bad\" elements in the sample. Testing shows it's the number of good elements, but it would be nice if the description of **out** made this explicit. Adding to the confusion, I believe the formula in the notes is incorrect (the combination in the upper left should be \"m choose x\"), but this then becomes the probability of choosing \"x\" bad elements. Changing the description to \"x = number of good elements in sample\", \"n = nsample\", \"m = ngood\", and \"N = total number of elements (ngood + nbad)\" would remove the discrepancy between code and notes.\r\n"}}
{"actor":{"display_login":"glinka"}}