Difference between revisions of "Talk:1725: Linear Regression"

Explain xkcd: It's 'cause you're dumb.
Jump to: navigation, search
Line 14: Line 14:
  
 
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)
 
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)
 +
 +
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)

Revision as of 18:03, 28 August 2016

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. 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. :) 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) Harperska (talk) 19:27, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

I think it looks like a alcohol drink with the little umbrella sticking out. Mikemk (talk) 06:25, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Based on what is an R^2 value of 0.06 significant??? I'm removing that. Djbrasier (talk) 20:59, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Oops, misread it! I read "insignificant" as "significant". Djbrasier (talk) 21:00, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

The teapot mention may just be a joke, not a reference. 141.101.98.114 (talk) (please sign your comments with ~~~~)

did someone check if it really was a Rsquared of 0,06?141.101.104.67 20:56, 27 August 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. Cosmogoblin (talk) 18:03, 28 August 2016 (UTC)