Difference between revisions of "Talk:2731: K-Means Clustering"
(→editorial: new section) |
(→editorial: Fixed typo) |
||
| 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) |
Revision as of 00:45, 31 January 2023
The wikipedia article does not clear anything up 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? Mia yun Ruse (talk) 14:08, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
Yeah, this is probably the least explanatory Explain xkcd I've read in the past 3 years. Still a lot of heavy math. 162.158.186.95 16:50, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
This feels very similar to the joke "There are 10 types of people: those who know binary and those who don't." Except that the real joke here is that Ponytail doesn't have anything meaningful to justify her version. 172.70.206.150 17:45, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
Current explanation claims that since every human is unique, clusters can only be formed by ignoring some traits. This seems false; a cluster could depend on multiple traits, so there's no obvious limit to the number of traits that could be used when forming clusters. Perhaps they mean that clusters can only be formed by combining non-identical points into the same cluster, but that's literally the entire purpose of clustering and applies to all clustering ever, so it seems like both a trivial observation and a non-sequitur. Am I missing something? 172.70.211.90 19:54, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
- Yes, the joke about why there are 8 billion clusters mentioned in the title text. 162.158.78.220 20:47, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
- No, I did not miss that. --172.70.211.136 22:53, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
- While it's true that clusters can depend on multiple traits, a cluster that depends on ALL human traits at once (or a very large number of them) is useless in practice. A useful cluster depends on a relatively limited number of traits. I think that's where the "ignoring" comes in. 162.158.146.208 22:30, 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. --172.70.211.136 22:53, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
editorial
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". (Fixed)
