is that normal?

i had it down to .215

hi

i had it down to .215

cool

btw: after some time, my NN's error just decide to go up again

I'd say something wrong with the learning process. It just diverged

I'd say something wrong with the learning process. It just diverged

so its normal that it goes back ?

If it remains with a higher error, you need to improve learning algorithm

I need to use another normalization?

I'll se your code. I should have some spare time now

Nice , thanks :)

pretty sure that the algo I used is correct

after all, already two applications of my NN work

.

.

Again your dot

:<

What does it mean???

dot net

Again your dot

I like it

I like it

Hmmm

Nice , thanks :)

I'm a beginner, too. So i don't know if i'll return with something useful :) But i read about similar cases

Hi ludo

What's your nn learning strategy?

What does it mean???

To insure that I'm not in a dream

What's your nn learning strategy?

backprop

is there more?

To insure that I'm not in a dream

How does that work?

is there more?

A lot more

i'll implement them as well :D

To insure that I'm not in a dream

Ohhh

i'll implement them as well :D

tell me about the other ones

backprop is the most common around now

How does that work?

I'm a bot

I'm a bot

Dream

I'm a bot

From BotLand

From BotLand

Lie

tell me about the other ones

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supervised_learning#Approaches_and_algorithms just to give you an idea

And you don't have only supervised learning

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supervised_learning#Approaches_and_algorithms just to give you an idea

Oh yea that

but its not a strategy for improving weights

Backprop is a supervised learning algorithm

A vector within a loop🙆🏻‍♂

Daaamn

A vector within a loop🙆🏻‍♂

wheres the problem?

wheres the problem?

Performance

Every time u'll delete and create one

my compiler's got me covered

my compiler's got me covered

How

it optimises that out

if it doesn't its a bad compiler

Wait

but I agree with you

if I were to be 100% not a crackpot

i'd need to put it outside of the loop

i'd need to put it outside of the loop

And use erase() at the end of the loop

wat?

Or clear i think

Oh

i see what you are getting at

wat?

It's the same thing as declaring a new vector every loop

i see what you are getting at

Okay :)

It's the same thing as declaring a new vector every loop

yea but its useless

I don't use push back

yea but its useless

Performance

i use vector = othervector;

Performance

no, .clear is useless in that case

i use vector = othervector;

+ vector.erase()

I don't need that

Believe me

When ur program get bigger

U'll need to do that

no

Generally

again i've got a compiler that optimizes for me

again i've got a compiler that optimizes for me

ur compiler so smart?

yep

To know that it's already declared in the previous loop

Oh that

again

that funciton was written in a matter of minutes