Editing Talk:1725: Linear Regression

<!--Please sign your posts with ~~~~-->
It also seems likely that the teapot refers to the Utah Teapot (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utah_teapot).  It was one of the first complex 3D objects defined for CGI rendering, and has seen countless uses since.  Notably in the Pipes screensaver, and early SIGGRAPH papers where it was rendered along side the 5 platonic solids as if it belonged with them.
[[User:Dkfenger|Dkfenger]] ([[User talk:Dkfenger|talk]]) 17:10, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
: I'm not sure I follow.  How do you reach that conclusion?  Given that the concept of constellations (and thus stars) is clearly shown in the comic, it seems much more likely to me that he was referring to Russell's Teapot and not to a computer rendering (if there was any reference at all).  The fact that that shape could abstractly resemble a teapot may be all that there is to it. :) [[User:KieferSkunk|KieferSkunk]] ([[User talk:KieferSkunk|talk]]) 18:06, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

I think that the teapot is a reference to the constellation Sagittarius. This seems most likely to me as the reference is to a constellation that looks like a teapot despite ostensibly being something else. Sagittarius is a constellation that is supposed to be an archer, but many people see it as a teapot instead. (http://www.space.com/30274-constellation-sagittarius-archer-dipper-teapot.html) [[User:Harperska|Harperska]] ([[User talk:Harperska|talk]]) 19:27, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Based on what is an R^2 value of 0.06 significant???  I'm removing that.  [[User:Djbrasier|Djbrasier]] ([[User talk:Djbrasier|talk]]) 20:59, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
: Oops, misread it!  I read "insignificant" as "significant". [[User:Djbrasier|Djbrasier]] ([[User talk:Djbrasier|talk]]) 21:00, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

The teapot mention may just be a joke, not a reference. {{unsigned ip|141.101.98.114}}

did someone check if it really was a Rsquared of 0,06?[[Special:Contributions/141.101.104.67|141.101.104.67]] 20:56, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

:Asuming the top left of the image as 0/0 and measuring in pixels I get f(x)=-0,135x + 124,8 with R²=0,0197, calcuated with LibreOffice. The line in the image has f(x)=-0,094x+125. If I change a single point by one or two the R² value varies from 0,0195 to 0,0199. If I substract 10% of the x value from the y value R² increases to 0,0574. So I think R²=0,06 is a little bit inaccurate, but not completely wrong. --[[Special:Contributions/162.158.83.228|162.158.83.228]] 19:01, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

::I think R^2 = 6% is very inaccurate if the true R^2 = 2%. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.219.56|108.162.219.56]] 00:07, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

Does anybody know of any real-world examples of a similarly low R^2 given in genuine research? It would be worth mentioning their existence if we can find one. [[User:Cosmogoblin|Cosmogoblin]] ([[User talk:Cosmogoblin|talk]]) 18:03, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
: In published research? I don't recall any. In submissions for review? At least twice. And of course one case where this comic could and should be used as an educational drawing - student reports, master's theses, etc. I've seen "conclusions" drawn from weaker data in those, far too many times for my mental health...--[[Special:Contributions/162.158.86.119|162.158.86.119]] 09:32, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Rex is also Latin for king, which may be related in the context of constellations. {{unsigned ip|172.68.11.81}}

This is irrelevant to the humor of the comic, but I fixed the paragraph on confidence intervals because it contained at least three misinterpretations (I have a MSc in statistics). The phrasing can be improved if needed. Don't worry though, [http://www.andrewgelman.com/2017/12/28/stupid-ass-statisticians-dont-know-goddam-confidence-interval even experienced statisticians get it wrong sometimes...] [[Special:Contributions/162.158.234.40|162.158.234.40]] 09:43, 10 April 2018 (UTC)