Talk:2731: K-Means Clustering - Revision history

Joehl: Added a nethodological note on generalizations of k-means that allow objective determination of the optimal number of clusters given a assumed class of cluster definitions

2023-02-02T16:55:24Z

Added a nethodological note on generalizations of k-means that allow objective determination of the optimal number of clusters given a assumed class of cluster definitions

172.70.38.77 at 13:48, 2 February 2023

2023-02-02T13:48:59Z

172.70.114.7: Funny?

2023-02-02T12:54:55Z

Funny?

172.71.147.21 at 10:48, 1 February 2023

2023-02-01T10:48:15Z

162.158.90.38 at 00:37, 1 February 2023

2023-02-01T00:37:21Z

Barmar at 20:43, 31 January 2023

2023-01-31T20:43:23Z

172.70.162.57 at 09:00, 31 January 2023

2023-01-31T09:00:48Z

172.71.151.77 at 02:58, 31 January 2023

2023-01-31T02:58:58Z

Hkmaly at 02:50, 31 January 2023

2023-01-31T02:50:09Z

172.70.110.231: /* editorial */ Fixed typo

2023-01-31T00:45:16Z

‎editorial: Fixed typo

@@ Line 23: / Line 23: @@
 :...and those whom use "whom"..? [[Special:Contributions/172.70.162.57|172.70.162.57]] 09:00, 31 January 2023 (UTC)
 ::Sure, there are plenty who misuse “whom” also. “Who / he / she / they VERB” vs “PREPOSITION whom / him / her / them” - who did, who has, who owns, he did, she has, they own - for whom, by whom, about whom, for him, by her, about them. A person who, a thing that. It’s really not that complicated. [[Special:Contributions/172.71.147.21|172.71.147.21]] 10:48, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
 == editorial ==

@@ Line 17: / Line 17: @@
 :::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)
 ::::Obviously humans are unique, and I never suggested otherwise. The thing that's false is the complete statement "it's necessary to ignore some traits BECAUSE all humans are unique". I actually think "it's necessary to ignore some traits" is not well-supported even if you stop there, but even if that part is true, it's definitely not a RESULT of all humans being unique. The current explanation reads like someone is twisting the topic to squeeze in a comment about their hobby horse even though it's not actually relevant. --[[Special:Contributions/162.158.90.38|162.158.90.38]] 00:37, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
+::::: It's just wrong to say you have to ignore some traits. I'm a data scientist and I've actually used k-means clustering at my job... everyone *is* unique so, you do lose information when you bucket them, but it isn't because you're throwing out some traits. You're just defining groups based on those traits. If I've got 20 people of all different heights, grouping them into "tall" and "short" is not throwing out height as a trait. The explanation is simply wrong. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.38.77|172.70.38.77]] 13:48, 2 February 2023 (UTC)
 Many people object to being defined by some group they belong to. E.g. people objecct to blanket statements about members of political parties ("I'm a Republican, but I'm pro-choice"), religions, age groups (the adage "If You Are Not a Liberal at 25, You Have No Heart. If You Are Not a Conservative at 35 You Have No Brain"), etc. I think this is the idea that the title text is going for. [[User:Barmar|Barmar]] ([[User talk:Barmar|talk]]) 20:43, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

← Older revision		Revision as of 12:54, 2 February 2023
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
		+	:Yeah. A while back I read a wikipedia article and was determined, for once, to completely understand it. Four years later, I had a PhD in an obscure (and totally useless) element of esoteric math. BTW, it turns out the article was completely wrong! /S [[Special:Contributions/172.70.114.7\|172.70.114.7]] 12:54, 2 February 2023 (UTC)Bumpf aussi

	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 21: / Line 21: @@
 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)
 :...and those whom use "whom"..? [[Special:Contributions/172.70.162.57|172.70.162.57]] 09:00, 31 January 2023 (UTC)
 == editorial ==

@@ Line 15: / 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)
 :::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)
 Many people object to being defined by some group they belong to. E.g. people objecct to blanket statements about members of political parties ("I'm a Republican, but I'm pro-choice"), religions, age groups (the adage "If You Are Not a Liberal at 25, You Have No Heart. If You Are Not a Conservative at 35 You Have No Brain"), etc. I think this is the idea that the title text is going for. [[User:Barmar|Barmar]] ([[User talk:Barmar|talk]]) 20:43, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

← Older revision		Revision as of 09:00, 31 January 2023
Line 17:		Line 17:

	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)
		+	:...and those whom use "whom"..? [[Special:Contributions/172.70.162.57\|172.70.162.57]] 09:00, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

	== editorial ==		== editorial ==

← Older revision		Revision as of 00:45, 31 January 2023
Line 18:		Line 18:

	This sentence clause appears to contain a typo: ", and indicate on a graph '''of''' the data has two distinct populations".		This sentence clause appears to contain a typo: ", and indicate on a graph '''of''' the data has two distinct populations".
−	It might be clearer as ", and indicate on a graph '''if''' the data has two distinct populations".	+	It might be clearer as ", and indicate on a graph '''if''' the data has two distinct populations". (Fixed)