Revision as of 06:05, 16 July 2014 edit 204.120.71.252 (talk) →Weighted Incremental Algorithm Alternative Incorrect ← Previous edit		Revision as of 13:27, 23 July 2014 edit undo Hroðulf (talk \| contribs) Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers 14,829 edits →Why "naive?": reply Next edit →
Line 533: ==Why "naive?"== What makes the first algorithm "naive?" I see no explanation as to how it is lacking, or what rules are broken, or what complications are not taken into consideration. [[User:Edison\|Edison]] ([[User talk:Edison\|talk]]) 18:11, 26 May 2014 (UTC) :It is naive because it is the obvious application of the formula that defines variance. :As for things that are lacking, those are discussed further down the article. For example, it is highly vulnerable to underflow, and it could be more efficient. :Feel free to edit the article to make these things more clear. :--[[User:Hro%C3%B0ulf\|Hroðulf]] (or Hrothulf) ([[User talk:Hro%C3%B0ulf\|Talk]]) 13:27, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Algorithms for calculating variance: Difference between revisions