Derive logprob of >= and <= operations

[shreyas3156]

What is this PR about?
This PR implements the logprob inference for binary comparison Ops >= and <= in continuation to #6662.
The derivation for discrete distributions has been implemented separately from continuous to club together the similarities in logprob of <= and > ops.

Addresses #6633.

Checklist

• Explain important implementation details 👆
• Make sure that the pre-commit linting/style checks pass.
• Link relevant issues (preferably in nice commit messages)
• Are the changes covered by tests and docstrings?
• Fill out the short summary sections 👇

New features

• Logprob derivation for GE and LE ops.

---

📚 Documentation preview 📚: https://pymc--6680.org.readthedocs.build/en/6680/

[codecov]

Codecov Report

Merging #6680 (40de354) into main (9b712bf) will decrease coverage by 4.33%.
The diff coverage is 100.00%.

Additional details and impacted files

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main    #6680      +/-   ##
==========================================
- Coverage   92.01%   87.68%   -4.33%     
==========================================
  Files          95       95              
  Lines       16000    16003       +3     
==========================================
- Hits        14722    14032     -690     
- Misses       1278     1971     +693     

Impacted Files	Coverage Δ
pymc/logprob/binary.py	98.11% <100.00%> (+0.11%)	⬆️

... and 8 files with indirect coverage changes

[ricardoV94]

Awesome 😎

Next step would be rewrites to allow dists to be on the right side of constants?

And maybe less important but does not operation make sense as a rewrite as well? not(gt(x, const), True) -> (gt(x, const), not(True))?

[shreyas3156]

Next step would be rewrites to allow dists to be on the right side of constants?

Yes, I'll use the logic in transforms.py to take into account the measurable input index for such cases.

And maybe less important but does not operation make sense as a rewrite as well? not(gt(x, const), True) -> (gt(x, const), not(True))?

This may be helpful if we are to tackle nested switch statements with overlapping intervals, as in the example mentioned in #6354.