| Latest revision |
Your text |
| Line 3: |
Line 3: |
| | | | |
| | I think the r0, r1, r2 are correlation coefficients. They are all between -1 and 1, and all called r, which is a common name for a correlation coefficient. Also, this would mean r2 shows a strong negative correlation between two things. --[[Special:Contributions/108.162.215.39|108.162.215.39]] 06:57, 11 May 2015 (UTC) | | I think the r0, r1, r2 are correlation coefficients. They are all between -1 and 1, and all called r, which is a common name for a correlation coefficient. Also, this would mean r2 shows a strong negative correlation between two things. --[[Special:Contributions/108.162.215.39|108.162.215.39]] 06:57, 11 May 2015 (UTC) |
| − |
| |
| − | I agree with the above comment, great explanation for this statistical variable which shows that his love becomes negatively correlated with time, complementing the first panel's graph. [[User:Barrtender|Barrtender]] ([[User talk:Barrtender|talk]]) 14:26, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
| |
| − |
| |
| − | :I also think that the correlation coefficient interpretation is right. Moreover, it looks like r0 refers to the time just after the first meeting (slightly positive trend), r1 to the time when they were dating (negative trend) and r2 to the time after engagement (with even stronger negative trend). --[[Special:Contributions/198.41.242.245|198.41.242.245]] 18:26, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
| |
| − |
| |
| − | ::You are conflating correlation with slope. While they share the same sign, a gentle slope and steep slope can have the same correlation coefficient. It might be better to look at the correlation probability, which for the three values are 4.0%, 37.21%, and 64.0%. All other things being equal, these are the probabilities that the two variables are actually correlated. Thus, only the last measurements should be considered significant. It does '''not''' imply A strong negative trend. --[[User:Rhmcoff|Rhmcoff]] ([[User talk:Rhmcoff|talk]]) 04:59, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
| |
| − |
| |
| − | Maybe [[833: Convincing]] would be worth mentioning in the explanation, where Megan draws a relationship themed graph (and Cueball complains about missing axis lables) -- [[User:Ruffy314|Ruffy314]] ([[User talk:Ruffy314|talk]]) 02:35, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
| |
| − |
| |
| − | This reminds me of Ted Chiang's short story, ''Division By Zero,'' where a character looks for proof of love and finds none, deciding he doesn't love them... Though I interpreted the end as positive, if a little ambiguous. Ted Chiang is a great author for XKCD fans, I think. [[Special:Contributions/172.69.68.147|172.69.68.147]] 18:14, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
| |
| − |
| |
| − | I am pretty damn sure (and am surprised it was not corrected before) that correlation is not of v1 or v2 to t, but v1 to v2 (over t). [[Special:Contributions/162.158.238.9|162.158.238.9]]M-ree
| |
| − |
| |
| − | The phrase "Charts and Graphs" could be a reference to the song Nothing Better by The Postal Service, which would be fitting as it's a song about a similar scenario. "I've made charts and graphs that should finally make it clear / I've prepared a lecture on why I have to leave" The album was released in 2003 so the timing works.[[Special:Contributions/172.70.114.159|172.70.114.159]] 19:02, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
| |
