[doc] Lowercase omega for per tree complexity #7532
Conversation
As suggested on issue #7480
| @@ -97,11 +97,13 @@ Mathematically, we can write our model in the form | |||
|
|
|||
| \hat{y}_i = \sum_{k=1}^K f_k(x_i), f_k \in \mathcal{F} | |||
|
|
|||
| where :math:`K` is the number of trees, :math:`f` is a function in the functional space :math:`\mathcal{F}`, and :math:`\mathcal{F}` is the set of all possible CARTs. The objective function to be optimized is given by | |||
| where :math:`K` is the number of trees, :math:`f_k` is a function in the functional space :math:`\mathcal{F}`, and :math:`\mathcal{F}` is the set of all possible CARTs. The objective function to be optimized is given by | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I think f_k is unnecessary since it's referring to the general function in the space.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Thanks @trivialfis. My rationale was:f isn't in the general function space :math:`\mathcal{F}` until it has its subscript.
Since " :math:`f_k` is a function in the functional space :math:`\mathcal{F}` "
is just a translation of " f_k \in \mathcal{F} " from the previous line, another alternative would be to just omit it, so that the line reads:
" where :math:`K` is the number of trees, and :math:`\mathcal{F}` is the set of all possible CARTs. "
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Thank you for the explanation.
| @@ -97,11 +97,13 @@ Mathematically, we can write our model in the form | |||
|
|
|||
| \hat{y}_i = \sum_{k=1}^K f_k(x_i), f_k \in \mathcal{F} | |||
|
|
|||
| where :math:`K` is the number of trees, :math:`f` is a function in the functional space :math:`\mathcal{F}`, and :math:`\mathcal{F}` is the set of all possible CARTs. The objective function to be optimized is given by | |||
| where :math:`K` is the number of trees, :math:`f_k` is a function in the functional space :math:`\mathcal{F}`, and :math:`\mathcal{F}` is the set of all possible CARTs. The objective function to be optimized is given by | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Thank you for the explanation.
As suggested on issue #7480
I think it should be fine to merge.