Talk:Gaussian process

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Added cleanup tag: this article does not give someone in the field an adequate overview of what a Gaussian process is, and goes off on a tangent involving undefined math. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ninjagecko (talk • contribs)

Perhaps it could be made accessible to a somewhat broader audience, but where does it go off on a tangent or get into "undefined math"? It gives the definition and a simple characterization, and then it lists examples, with links. Michael Hardy 21:45, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Of course, any article can be improved in many ways, and surely this one can also. However, I have no idea what you mean by undefined math. In addition, I would have thought that for someone in the field, this article is rather banal and uninteresting, since surely its contents would be already familiar to such an individual. Do you mean someone not in the field? --CSTAR 03:54, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Somehow my reply never went through. Michael-- Yes, you're right. Technically the indices were previously defined way at the top, thus I removed the cleanup tag. Nevertheless it wasn't very clear I thought, so I improved the article lots by categorizing all the glomped-up text, and making the definition abit clearer. CSTAR-- No, I meant what I said: "someone in the field". Even as a reference, it was hard to follow. I've already fixed it though. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ninjagecko (talk • contribs) 09:21, 6 December 2006 (UTC).

Also CSTAR, I personally find it rather haughty, to imagine the only people who have any business reading this entry are people who've been working with this material for 4+ years. The point of a reference is to be a reference for someone who wants to learn or brush up on the material. No offense. Ninjagecko 09:24, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't think your statement(the only people who have any business reading this entry are people who've been working with this material for 4+ years) paraphrases in any way what I said. In any case what I had intended to say was that the article was technicaly correct. --CSTAR 13:36, 6 December 2006 (UTC)