-
@ChatGPT
帮我翻译下面这段话：
Training and Testing
Now, why do we even need to split our dataset? Generally speaking, our machine learning model takes in data, makes some predictions, and then we somehow tell our model how good or bad its predictions were. Then we compare the predictions of our model with our labels and then we calculate by how much the predictions differ from our labels based on some metric like the mean squared error or the cross entropy.The more data we use to train our model, the more opportunities it has to learn from its mistakes, the more insights it can extract from the data it has been given, and the better the resulting model will be at predicting our labels*
Assuming that our dataset is reasonable and does not contain a lot of very similar entries or a lot of unrepresentative data points.
. So if our final goal is to make our model as good as possible at predicting our labels, why don’t we just take the entire dataset to train our model? In theory, if we take the entire dataset to train our model, it will perform better than if we just use 70% or 80% of the data for training. The problem is that if we use all the data for training, we can no longer evaluate the true performance of our model in an unbiased fashion. Sure, we can evaluate the model on the data that it was trained on, but this would be problematic. To understand why, let’s look at a practical example. -
@ChatGPT
帮我翻译下面这段话：
Training and Testing
Now, why do we even need to split our dataset? Generally speaking, our machine learning model takes in data, makes some predictions, and then we somehow tell our model how good or bad its predictions were. Then we compare the predictions of our model with our labels and then we calculate by how much the predictions differ from our labels based on some metric like the mean squared error or the cross entropy.The more data we use to train our model, the more opportunities it has to learn from its mistakes, the more insights it can extract from the data it has been given, and the better the resulting model will be at predicting our labels*
Assuming that our dataset is reasonable and does not contain a lot of very similar entries or a lot of unrepresentative data points.
. So if our final goal is to make our model as good as possible at predicting our labels, why don’t we just take the entire dataset to train our model? In theory, if we take the entire dataset to train our model, it will perform better than if we just use 70% or 80% of the data for training. The problem is that if we use all the data for training, we can no longer evaluate the true performance of our model in an unbiased fashion. Sure, we can evaluate the model on the data that it was trained on, but this would be problematic. To understand why, let’s look at a practical example.GEE 说：
@ChatGPT
帮我翻译下面这段话：
Training and Testing
Now, why do we even need to split our dataset? Generally speaking, our machine learning model takes in data, makes some predictions, and then we somehow tell our model how good or bad its predictions were. Then we compare the predictions of our model with our labels and then we calculate by how much the predictions differ from our labels based on some metric like the mean squared error or the cross entropy.The more data we use to train our model, the more opportunities it has to learn from its mistakes, the more insights it can extract from the data it has been given, and the better the resulting model will be at predicting our labels*
Assuming that our dataset is reasonable and does not contain a lot of very similar entries or a lot of unrepresentative data points.
. So if our final goal is to make our model as good as possible at predicting our labels, why don’t we just take the entire dataset to train our model? In theory, if we take the entire dataset to train our model, it will perform better than if we just use 70% or 80% of the data for training. The problem is that if we use all the data for training, we can no longer evaluate the true performance of our model in an unbiased fashion. Sure, we can evaluate the model on the data that it was trained on, but this would be problematic. To understand why, let’s look at a practical example.训练和测试
那么，为什么我们甚至需要拆分我们的数据集呢？一般来说，我们的机器学习模型会接受数据，进行一些预测，然后我们以某种方式告诉我们的模型它的预测有多好或多差。然后我们将我们的模型的预测与我们的标签进行比较，然后根据某个指标，如均方误差或交叉熵，计算出模型的预测与标签之间的差异。我们使用的训练模型的数据越多，它就有越多的机会从错误中学习，从它所获得的数据中提取更多的见解，最终与预测我们的标签的结果更好。假设我们的数据集合理且不包含许多非常相似的条目或大量不代表性的数据点。那么，如果我们的最终目标是使我们的模型在预测我们的标签方面尽可能好，为什么不直接使用整个数据集来训练我们的模型呢？理论上，如果我们使用整个数据集来训练模型，它将比如果我们只使用70％或80％的数据进行训练表现得更好。问题在于，如果我们使用所有数据进行训练，我们就无法以无偏的方式评估我们模型的真实表现。当然，我们可以在训练的数据上评估模型，但这将是有问题的。要了解原因，让我们看一个实际的例子。
-
ivan 说：
@ChatGPT “Microsoft.Data.Sqlite.SqliteConnection”的类型初始值设定项引发异常。 这个报错是什么原因，怎样解决
这个错误提示是因为在初始化
SqliteConnection对象时遇到了问题，具体原因可能是以下几种情况：-
SqliteConnection 组件未添加：请确保你的项目引用了 Microsoft.Data.Sqlite 库，可以在 NuGet 库中搜索并安装。
-
缺少依赖项：SqliteConnection 类需要依赖其他组件和库文件，包括底层本机 SQLite 库和 Visual C++ 等组件。请确保安装了这些依赖项，或自行安装。
-
连接字符串错误：在初始化 SqliteConnection 对象时，你需要通过一个字符串参数指定 SQLite 数据库文件的路径或连接字符串。请确保连接字符串的格式正确，数据库文件存在，并使用正确的路径。
以下是一些可能有用的解决步骤：
-
确认项目中已引入 Microsoft.Data.Sqlite 库。
-
确认本机已安装 Visual C++ 可再发行组件。
-
确认连接字符串设置正确。如下：
string connectionString = "Data Source=/path/to/db.sqlite"; using (var connection = new SqliteConnection(connectionString)) { // use the connection }- 如果需要，请确保将 SQLite 数据库文件复制到正确的目录或指定完整的路径。
希望这些解决步骤能够帮助你解决问题。如果还有问题，请提供更多信息，以便我们更好地为你提供帮助。
-
-
ivan 说：
@ChatGPT Microsoft.Data.Sqlite 在.net core下运行正常，在.netframework下运行失败怎么解决
Microsoft.Data.Sqlite 是一个用于.NET应用程序中使用 SQLite 数据库的库，该库支持在 .NET Core 和 .NET Framework 中运行。如果您的应用程序在 .NET Core 中运行正常，但在 .NET Framework 下失败，可能是因为以下原因之一：
-
依赖项不匹配：确保您在 .NET Framework 中使用的是适当的依赖项版本。在 .NET Core 和 .NET Framework 中使用的依赖项可能会有所不同。请参阅库文档以获取适当的依赖项版本。
-
运行时版本不同：.NET Core 和 .NET Framework 运行时版本可能会有所不同。确保您在正确的 .NET Framework 版本中使用 Microsoft.Data.Sqlite 库以保证兼容性。
-
其他问题：某些情况下，问题可能不容易识别。您可以尝试在程序中使用调试器，或者在 .NET Framework 上重新构建您的应用程序以获得更详细的错误消息，以便更好地诊断问题。
总之，检查依赖项版本和运行时版本是否正确，并使用调试器进行诊断可能有助于解决 Microsoft.Data.Sqlite 在 .NET Framework 中运行失败的问题。
-
-
@ChatGPT 帮我翻译：
We now use polynomial regression to predict the number of points achieved based on the number of hours studied. Now we might choose to use a very complicated model and see how it performs. As an example, here’s how a polynomial regression with a degree of 15 looks like: -
@ChatGPT 帮我翻译：
We now use polynomial regression to predict the number of points achieved based on the number of hours studied. Now we might choose to use a very complicated model and see how it performs. As an example, here’s how a polynomial regression with a degree of 15 looks like:GEE 说：
@ChatGPT 帮我翻译：
We now use polynomial regression to predict the number of points achieved based on the number of hours studied. Now we might choose to use a very complicated model and see how it performs. As an example, here’s how a polynomial regression with a degree of 15 looks like:我们现在使用多项式回归来预测所学习的时数与获得的分数之间的关系。现在我们可能会选择使用一个非常复杂的模型来查看它的表现。例如，下面是一个15次多项式回归的样式。
-
@ChatGPT
帮我翻译以下内容：
As you see, this model has a very low error (it has a root mean squared error, or RMSE, of about 4.93). In other terms, it has very low bias. However, this model also has a very high variance. After reading the article about bias and variance, we can say that this model is overfit.This becomes even clearer when we split our dataset into a training portion and a testing portion. We still use our overfit model, but this time we train it only on the training data and then evaluate its performance both on the train set as well as the test set. This allows us to reason about the variance of this particular model. Take a look at the following plot:
-
@ChatGPT
帮我翻译以下内容：
As you see, this model has a very low error (it has a root mean squared error, or RMSE, of about 4.93). In other terms, it has very low bias. However, this model also has a very high variance. After reading the article about bias and variance, we can say that this model is overfit.This becomes even clearer when we split our dataset into a training portion and a testing portion. We still use our overfit model, but this time we train it only on the training data and then evaluate its performance both on the train set as well as the test set. This allows us to reason about the variance of this particular model. Take a look at the following plot:
GEE 说：
@ChatGPT
帮我翻译以下内容：
As you see, this model has a very low error (it has a root mean squared error, or RMSE, of about 4.93). In other terms, it has very low bias. However, this model also has a very high variance. After reading the article about bias and variance, we can say that this model is overfit.This becomes even clearer when we split our dataset into a training portion and a testing portion. We still use our overfit model, but this time we train it only on the training data and then evaluate its performance both on the train set as well as the test set. This allows us to reason about the variance of this particular model. Take a look at the following plot:
哎呀, OpenAI接口可能出问题了，请稍后再试！我这就PM站长~ @malaohu
-
@ChatGPT
帮我翻译以下内容：
As you see, this model has a very low error (it has a root mean squared error, or RMSE, of about 4.93). In other terms, it has very low bias. However, this model also has a very high variance. After reading the article about bias and variance, we can say that this model is overfit.This becomes even clearer when we split our dataset into a training portion and a testing portion. We still use our overfit model, but this time we train it only on the training data and then evaluate its performance both on the train set as well as the test set. This allows us to reason about the variance of this particular model. Take a look at the following plot:
-
@ChatGPT
帮我翻译以下内容：
As you see, this model has a very low error (it has a root mean squared error, or RMSE, of about 4.93). In other terms, it has very low bias. However, this model also has a very high variance. After reading the article about bias and variance, we can say that this model is overfit.This becomes even clearer when we split our dataset into a training portion and a testing portion. We still use our overfit model, but this time we train it only on the training data and then evaluate its performance both on the train set as well as the test set. This allows us to reason about the variance of this particular model. Take a look at the following plot:
GEE 说：
@ChatGPT
帮我翻译以下内容：
As you see, this model has a very low error (it has a root mean squared error, or RMSE, of about 4.93). In other terms, it has very low bias. However, this model also has a very high variance. After reading the article about bias and variance, we can say that this model is overfit.This becomes even clearer when we split our dataset into a training portion and a testing portion. We still use our overfit model, but this time we train it only on the training data and then evaluate its performance both on the train set as well as the test set. This allows us to reason about the variance of this particular model. Take a look at the following plot:
如您所见，这个模型的误差非常低（其均方根误差（RMSE）约为4.93）。换句话说，它的偏差非常小。然而，这个模型也有非常高的方差。在阅读了有关偏差和方差的文章后，我们可以说这个模型是过拟合的。
当我们将数据集分成训练集和测试集时，这一点变得更加清晰。我们仍然使用过拟合的模型，但这一次我们仅在训练数据上对其进行训练，然后在训练集和测试集上同时评估其性能。这使我们能够推理出这个特定模型的方差。请看下面的图表：
-
malaohu 说：
@ChatGPT 8小时睡眠论可能是错的?
是的，八小时睡眠论并不适用于每个人。虽然八小时睡眠是对大多数成年人的推荐，但不同人对睡眠的需求是不同的。有些人需要更少的睡眠，而有些人需要更多的睡眠来保持身体和心理健康。
有些人的身体自然有较短的睡眠需求，这被称为基因型睡眠。一些研究表明，人们的基因决定了他们需要多长时间的睡眠。有些人可以睡4-6小时，而其他人可能需要睡10小时以上。
此外，个人的生活习惯和身体状况也会影响他们对睡眠的需求。良好的睡眠质量比睡眠时间更重要，因为即使你睡足了8个小时，如果你的睡眠质量不好，你也会感到精疲力竭。
综上所述，八小时睡眠论并不适用于每个人。每个人都应该尽力找到适合自己的睡眠时间，以确保身心健康。
-
ivan 说：
@ChatGPT 筛选出list集合中包含某个字符串的字符串
可以使用STL中的
find_if来实现。以下是一个示例代码：
#include #include #include #include using namespace std; int main() { list strList = {"hello", "world", "chatbot", "jike", "ai"}; string searchStr = "bot"; auto it = find_if(strList.begin(), strList.end(), [searchStr](const string& str) { return str.find(searchStr) != string::npos; }); while (it != strList.end()) { cout strList和一个要查找的字符串searchStr，我们使用了STL中的`find_if`函数，通过Lambda表达式来检查每个字符串是否包含searchStr。 find_if返回的迭代器指向第一个符合条件的元素。我们使用while循环来打印所有满足条件的字符串。最后的输出如下所示:chatbot
