LFD Book Forum  

Go Back   LFD Book Forum > Course Discussions > Online LFD course > Homework 3

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 10-24-2012, 09:54 PM
skyw2012 skyw2012 is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 1
Default On Q9

Trying to solve this question (sadly I failed) I realized that I didn't quite understand the shattering correctly in the beginning. In the meantime I've clarified this but still I don't know how to answer this question.
I imagine that must be a particular way of either selecting the right sets of points from the options of the question to prove they can be shattered or to identify the break point for this case to ensure that any set of points equal or greater can't be shattered.
Any suggestions on how to approach the solution? Thank you
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 10-24-2012, 10:56 PM
yaser's Avatar
yaser yaser is offline
Caltech
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Pasadena, California, USA
Posts: 1,477
Default Re: On Q9

Quote:
Originally Posted by skyw2012 View Post
Trying to solve this question (sadly I failed) I realized that I didn't quite understand the shattering correctly in the beginning. In the meantime I've clarified this but still I don't know how to answer this question.
I imagine that must be a particular way of either selecting the right sets of points from the options of the question to prove they can be shattered or to identify the break point for this case to ensure that any set of points equal or greater can't be shattered.
Any suggestions on how to approach the solution? Thank you
There is no systematic way of doing this, but here are some tips.

The choice of where to place the points should be done so as to maximize the chances that they will be shattered. Since the triangle is a convex region, having one of the points being 'internal' to other points will preclude the possibility of shattering (same situation as in the case of convex regions discussed in the lecture). Therefore, choosing the points at the perimeter of a circle (for example) would be a good starting point.

Now, imagine all kinds of triangles trying to split these points into different dichotomies, and look for how many points you can afford to have while being able to split them in every possible way using triangles. It's an interesting puzzle to work on.
__________________
Where everyone thinks alike, no one thinks very much
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 01-26-2013, 11:05 AM
melipone melipone is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 72
Default Re: On Q9

Can it be several overlapping triangles (like in picture) or just one triangle?

Last edited by melipone; 01-26-2013 at 11:06 AM. Reason: Check on picture
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 01-26-2013, 11:30 AM
ezreal ezreal is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 15
Default Re: On Q9

Since this thread doesn't say *Answer* in the title, I don't think we can discuss any hints further than the notion of clever point placement.

Quote:
Originally Posted by melipone View Post
Can it be several overlapping triangles (like in picture) or just one triangle?
I believe it should only be one triangle.
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 01-26-2013, 01:44 PM
MartinT MartinT is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 2
Default Re: On Q9

One word in addition - with triangles we can't afford the convenience of having arbitrarily many vertices (as with convex sets in general - just stating the obvious). It might therefore be useful to keep in mind that the triangle's vertices don't have to rest on the circle, though the data points better do. As the question states, for a point to be covered (h(x)=+1) it suffices if it lies within the triangle, not necessarily directly on its edges or vertices.
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 04-17-2013, 06:14 PM
Elroch Elroch is offline
Invited Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 143
Default Re: On Q9

It's interesting to consider the relationship between the parametrisation of hypotheses and VC dimension. A triangle requires a fixed finite number of parameters (count them ), more general convex sets can require an unbounded number of parameters. I wouldn't expect a hypothesis set with a finite parametrisation to have an infinite VC dimension (although the two dimensions are only loosely related) but I haven't investigated the details much.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 12:23 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.3
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
The contents of this forum are to be used ONLY by readers of the Learning From Data book by Yaser S. Abu-Mostafa, Malik Magdon-Ismail, and Hsuan-Tien Lin, and participants in the Learning From Data MOOC by Yaser S. Abu-Mostafa. No part of these contents is to be communicated or made accessible to ANY other person or entity.