Quote:
Originally Posted by steveb
I am guessing that most people have not much clue about what they are looking at ......including me.
i am confident i have the knowhow better than most, but after a couple of minutes looking at your stuff, i just went back to doing whatever it was i was doing.
not everybody can read python code, especially those with no code writing experience.
if you truly wanted input you would make it easier for people to offer it.
not to mention that one might think you are going down the wrong track anyway.
how does one validate something that by its very nature can never be perfect?
all i do is try to minimise the error of the whole, but with the full knowledge any particular bit may be way out.
so if you think what i am writing here is double dutch, then perhaps that is what yours is to others!
|
I certainly wanted input but obviously I did not make a good work towards the presentation layer; I though that it would be easy to follow the documentation that I have put together but it seems to me that people are not willing to read closely though it.
As far as validation, I do not think that lack of perfection invalidates it. What I am showing in this notebook is that the the set of figures I am using, indeed can be used for prediction and beat a random approach; of course I am not striving for perfection in the same exact way that a machine learning system is approaching any stochastic event.
