Talk:Computational learning theory

Untitled
This article looks like it overlaps learning theory (statistics) and should be combined in some way. -- hike395 05:29, 30 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Computational learning theory is more properly a sub-discipline of computational complexity theory. Although a number of results in learning theory use results from statistics, the contribution of (modern) learning theory (and learning theorists) to statistics is not all that significant. --krishnanp 15:23, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Bayesian statistics is not a subdiscipline of computational learning theory. It's a rigorous approach to statistics coupled with a different philosophy about probability. It would make no sense that the Bayesian approach to stats was a subdiscipline of CLT but the classical frequentist stats was not. Unless you're claiming that statistics as a whole is a subdiscipline CLT, which is even more unjustified.

Blaise 17:50, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * Good point. I changed the list to "approaches" rather than subdisciplines. The theoretical underpinnings for many of these approaches arose outside of CLT. -- hike395 23:11, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Category
The Category:Machine learning is a bit overfull. Anyone here up for organizing the relevant terms from computational learning theory in an appropriate subcategory? Thank you. --Chire (talk) 16:07, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Cleaning Up References
While there is a references section at the end, citations to those references need to be worked into the body of the text. I suspect the existing references are sufficient for all current uncited claims. Stellaathena (talk) 20:04, 15 November 2019 (UTC)