| ▲ | moregrist 2 hours ago | ||||||||||||||||
PCA is an orthogonal transformation of the covariance matrix, so like all orthogonal transformations, it’s _literally a rotation_ in N-dimensional space. SVD is more complex but ultimately it’s just another useful decomposition of a matrix. I’m not sure why you’re both negative and dismissive. Transformation matrices in graphics are a good and approachable way to get used to linear transformations, which turn out to be useful pretty much everywhere. Whether or not that helps you with ML depends more on what you’re doing in ML. FAANG doesn’t have a monopoly on ML or on interesting work in ML. | |||||||||||||||||
| ▲ | mathisfun123 2 hours ago | parent [-] | ||||||||||||||||
> PCA is an orthogonal transformation of the covariance matrix Yes you're now the second person the literally repeat the same thing I've already stated extremely clearly and succinctly: PCA is not just rotation (hint: you also need to understand covariance). > I’m not sure why you’re both negative and dismissive. Transformation matrices in graphics are a good and approachable way to get used to linear transformations, which turn out to be useful pretty much everywhere. I've already literally drawn the analogy/metaphor that I've drawn: if you think 2d/3d rotation matrices as they are used in graphics is any kind of introduction to the matrices in ML (modeling linear transformations or otherwise) then you're probably the type of person that believes that cash registers any kind of introduction to finance. My point is not that hard to understand. Graphics in no way, way, shape, or form prepares you for ML. I don't understand why this is so controversial. | |||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||