Editing Talk:2731: K-Means Clustering
Please sign your posts with ~~~~ |
Warning: You are not logged in. Your IP address will be publicly visible if you make any edits. If you log in or create an account, your edits will be attributed to your username, along with other benefits.
The edit can be undone.
Please check the comparison below to verify that this is what you want to do, and then save the changes below to finish undoing the edit.
Latest revision | Your text | ||
Line 2: | Line 2: | ||
{{w|K-means_clustering|The wikipedia article}} does not clear anything up [[Special:Contributions/162.158.78.228|162.158.78.228]] 13:53, 30 January 2023 (UTC)Bumpf | {{w|K-means_clustering|The wikipedia article}} does not clear anything up [[Special:Contributions/162.158.78.228|162.158.78.228]] 13:53, 30 January 2023 (UTC)Bumpf | ||
− | |||
The "Convergence of ''k''-means" animation is reasonably distinctive for a two-dimensional case, showing at least the motivation for the problem . Could it be attached here? [[User:Mia yun Ruse|Mia yun Ruse]] ([[User talk:Mia yun Ruse|talk]]) 14:08, 30 January 2023 (UTC) | The "Convergence of ''k''-means" animation is reasonably distinctive for a two-dimensional case, showing at least the motivation for the problem . Could it be attached here? [[User:Mia yun Ruse|Mia yun Ruse]] ([[User talk:Mia yun Ruse|talk]]) 14:08, 30 January 2023 (UTC) | ||
Line 16: | Line 15: | ||
::Supposing that's true, that would apply to any sample of humans. The "since all humans are unique" part would still be false, and the comment still wouldn't make sense in context as a response to the specific scenario of 8 billion humans. --[[Special:Contributions/172.70.211.136|172.70.211.136]] 22:53, 30 January 2023 (UTC) | ::Supposing that's true, that would apply to any sample of humans. The "since all humans are unique" part would still be false, and the comment still wouldn't make sense in context as a response to the specific scenario of 8 billion humans. --[[Special:Contributions/172.70.211.136|172.70.211.136]] 22:53, 30 January 2023 (UTC) | ||
:::Most people would object to the idea that they are fully defined by their DNA. Yet even taking just DNA, the probability of two humans having same is practically zero. Even identical twins have differences in DNA due to radiation and toxins! Sure, 99% of DNA is identical between all humans (is what makes them human), but DNA is over 6 Gigabase pairs. And how many do you think criminalists needs in DNA identification to ensure match probabilities of 1 in a quintillion? Just hundreds. Yes, every human is unique. -- [[User:Hkmaly|Hkmaly]] ([[User talk:Hkmaly|talk]]) 02:50, 31 January 2023 (UTC) | :::Most people would object to the idea that they are fully defined by their DNA. Yet even taking just DNA, the probability of two humans having same is practically zero. Even identical twins have differences in DNA due to radiation and toxins! Sure, 99% of DNA is identical between all humans (is what makes them human), but DNA is over 6 Gigabase pairs. And how many do you think criminalists needs in DNA identification to ensure match probabilities of 1 in a quintillion? Just hundreds. Yes, every human is unique. -- [[User:Hkmaly|Hkmaly]] ([[User talk:Hkmaly|talk]]) 02:50, 31 January 2023 (UTC) | ||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
There are two types of ''people'' in the world: those ''who'' use the word “who” to refer to people and the word “that” to refer to things, and those ''who'' don’t. [[Special:Contributions/172.71.151.77|172.71.151.77]] 02:58, 31 January 2023 (UTC) | There are two types of ''people'' in the world: those ''who'' use the word “who” to refer to people and the word “that” to refer to things, and those ''who'' don’t. [[Special:Contributions/172.71.151.77|172.71.151.77]] 02:58, 31 January 2023 (UTC) | ||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
== editorial == | == editorial == |