Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Mathematics/2021 May 5
Mathematics desk | ||
---|---|---|
< May 4 | << Apr | May | Jun >> | May 6 > |
Welcome to the Wikipedia Mathematics Reference Desk Archives |
---|
The page you are currently viewing is a transcluded archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages. |
May 5
[edit]Orientation of confusion matrix
[edit]@Danilosilva128: asked me on Talk:Confusion_matrix#Confusion_Matrix_is_Transposed_compared_to_standard_practice about whether confusion matrices should have actual (ground truth) values as rows, and predicted values as columns, counter to the ground-truth-as-columns convention here on Wikipedia.
Danilosilva128 cited several references using the ground-truth-as-rows convention. Is anyone here aware of a reputable style guide that mandates one or the other?
Thanks,
cmɢʟee⎆τaʟκ 15:14, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
P.S. Pinging @David Eppstein:
- I looked at the first eight research papers I could find that used the term "confusion matrix" for which I had access to the full text. Of these, two followed the WP convention, the other six its transpose. Clearly, there is no strict standard. Aside: I do not like the term "predicted". It is not prediction, more guessing, so "guessed class" would be clearer. Or, since this is the class produced by a classification system as output, in response to a stimulus provided as input, perhaps "output class"? --Lambiam 17:03, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
- Not a topic I'm familiar enough with to have an informed opinion, sorry. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:18, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
- Textbooks too do not follow one standard. I see no clear reason to prefer one variant over the other, but it may be good to point out in the article that both variants are found in the literature. --Lambiam 19:55, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
- Thanks, Lambiam and David Eppstein. I'll discuss separately with Danilosilva128 how to proceed. Good point about mentioning that both are found in literature. Cheers, cmɢʟee⎆τaʟκ 23:43, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
Is there a "name" for this triangle?
[edit]Consider a right triangle with side lengths 1/2 and 1, respectively. The hypotenuse is thus . Now add 1/2 to that and you get the golden ratio! In other words, What I'd like to know is if there a name for this particular triangle and moreover if any interesting properties are known of it? Earl of Arundel (talk) 21:52, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
The square of 1.118 is 1.249924. Pythagorean triples must be made of 3 integers, and in this case, multiply 1/2, 1, and 1.118 all by 1000 and you'll get 500, 1000, 1118; these can be halved to get 250, 500, 559. This clearly isn't a Pythagorean triple because it has 2 even legs and an odd hypotenuse. Left side is 312500; right side is 312481. Georgia guy (talk) 23:51, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
- The 1.118[...] part (the square being 5/4) is actually irrational. So by definition it couldn't possibly be scaled to ANY Pythagorean triple to begin with.
- Earl of Arundel (talk) 00:27, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
- The golden ratio is (1+√5)/2, so yes, if you add 1/2 to the length of the hypotenuse (=√5/2) then you get the golden ratio. If memory serves then Euclid used such a triangle to construct the golden ratio and from that to construct a regular pentagon, but I don't know of any specific name given to the traiangle; if Euclid ever gave it a name it was probably lost to history. It's not hard to construct an infinite number of right triangles whose sides are integer combinations of 1 and φ, Pythagophinarean triples if you will. One such is (1, 2, 2φ-1) which is your triangle scaled by a factor of 2. Others are (2φ-1, 2, 3), (4, 3φ-4, 5φ-4) and (4φ+1, 4φ-2, 6φ-1). --RDBury (talk) 02:21, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
- Interesting!
- Earl of Arundel (talk) 06:39, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
- Two more with only one irrational side and with single-digit integers only: (2, 6φ−3, 7) and (1, 8φ−4, 9). --Lambiam 08:47, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
- No triangles were harmed in Euclid's construction.[1] The construction from a a right triangle with side lengths 1/2 and 1 is shown in the "Golden Ratio in Geometry" article on Cut-the-knot, in the diagram below the text "The golden rectangle is easily constructed from a square as shown in the diagram below". (The triangle's hypotenuse is the dotted line.) --Lambiam 06:14, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
- Aha, so it was hiding in plain sight! Also found in the "Dividing a line segment by exterior division" subsection of Golden_ratio#Geometry. Thanks again, Lambiam. :)
- Earl of Arundel (talk) 06:39, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
- The golden ratio is (1+√5)/2, so yes, if you add 1/2 to the length of the hypotenuse (=√5/2) then you get the golden ratio. If memory serves then Euclid used such a triangle to construct the golden ratio and from that to construct a regular pentagon, but I don't know of any specific name given to the traiangle; if Euclid ever gave it a name it was probably lost to history. It's not hard to construct an infinite number of right triangles whose sides are integer combinations of 1 and φ, Pythagophinarean triples if you will. One such is (1, 2, 2φ-1) which is your triangle scaled by a factor of 2. Others are (2φ-1, 2, 3), (4, 3φ-4, 5φ-4) and (4φ+1, 4φ-2, 6φ-1). --RDBury (talk) 02:21, 6 May 2021 (UTC)