ML ONline.AD 1198633966

点击联系发帖人 时间：2011-06-28 06:03

Mladkov酒店预订_Mladkov酒店推荐_缤客查看: 1840|回复: 5
补报一个CMU ML master的ad
精华主题学分
中级农民-加分请看右边栏-多参与|分享|记录|反馈, 积分 122, 距离下一级还需 378 积分
在线时间小时
[15Fall.MS.AD无奖][CS@ML@CMU]通知时间:
背景见定位贴:
本科: Maths & CS @ HKU, GPA
4.02/4.3: 海本
T单项和总分: 110 (S 23)
G单项和总分: 164 170 3.5
sub专业和分数:
背景的其他说明（如牛推等）:
结果学校国家、地区: 美国
查到status的方式:email通知&
购买链接：
注册一亩三分地论坛，查看更多干货！
才可以下载或查看，没有帐号？
本科在港大读数学，期间去UCD交换半年，阴错阳差学起了CS专业，后来决定继续做machine learning方向。交换期间（包括暑假）和UCD的两个prof做了两个小项目，但没什么成果，是他们写的，牛不牛我也不知道无paper，无实习...直接导致我的phd全军覆没TT
申CMU的ML完全是碰运气，没想到申到了，补报一个~祝各位申请也都顺顺利利！







精华主题学分
在线时间小时
congcongcong~!
精华主题学分
在线时间小时
congcongcong~!
哦，你找到了我~!
精华主题学分
在线时间小时
哦，你找到了我~!
haha yep catch u. boring CAES class is for stalking u&&lol
精华主题学分
在线时间小时
原来ML这么早就发了AD，估计我是被默拒了& &
精华主题学分
在线时间小时
原来ML这么早就发了AD，估计我是被默拒了&
再等等嘛，可能是一批一批发的。祝好运！
<form method="post" autocomplete="off" id="fastpostform" action="forum.php?mod=post&action=reply&fid=82&tid=119254&extra=&replysubmit=yes&infloat=yes&handlekey=fastpost"
onSubmit="
// TODO Howard 11/3/2015
var sbtn = $('fastpostsubmit');
sbtn.disabled =
sbtn.innerHTML = ' 回复发表中... ';
sbtn.setAttribute('background', sbtn.style.background);
sbtn.setAttribute('bordercolor', sbtn.style.borderColor);
sbtn.style.background = '#C7C7C7';
sbtn.style.borderColor = '#8B8B8B';
var form =
// --product--
var isValid = fastpostvalidate(form, null, 0);
if(!isValid) reoverBtn();
return isV
// --product--
// --testing--
//setTimeout(function() {
// var isValid = fastpostvalidate(form, null, 0);
// if(!isValid) reoverBtn();
//}, 2000);
// --testing--
您需要登录后才可以回帖
回帖并转播
回帖后跳转到最后一页
Instant搜索更强大，不扣积分，内容组织的更好更整洁！目前仍在beta版本，努力完善中！
一亩三分地推荐 /5
地主Warald亲手做你的申请，针对你的背景和目标，考虑申请、学习、就业、移民等系列问题，制定申请策略。
“offer”指全额奖学金，免学费全免+每月工资，Berkeley, CMU, JHU, UIUC, Gatech, UMich, UCLA, Columbia，欢迎观赏。
电子工程、计算机、统计、金数金工、化工等, Stanford, Berkeley, CMU, Cornell, Yale, Columbia, Chicago, Duke, UPenn, UIUC, Brown, UMich, JHU等
有留学、申请、找工、职业规划上的难题？先上论坛提问！
论坛考古也帮不上忙，发帖得到的回答仍然不够？电话找Warald来解答！
WARALD新书上市啦：《你不知道的美国留学》清华大学出版社，各大电商发售
Powered byFrom Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
"Personal attack" redirects here. For the policy on Wikipedia, see .
Ad hominem ( for "to the man" or "to the person"), short for argumentum ad hominem, is a logical
in which an argument is rebutted by attacking the character, motive, or other attribute of the person making the argument, or persons associated with the argument, rather than attacking the substance of the argument itself.
Fallacious ad hominem reasoning is normally categorized as an , more precisely as a , a subcategory of .
However, in some cases, ad hominen attacks can be non- i.e., if the attack on the character of the person is directly tackling the argument itself. For example, if the truth of the argument relies on the truthfulness of the person making the argument—rather than known facts—then pointing out that the person has previously lied is not a fallacious argument.
Main article:
Ad hominem tu quoque (literally: "You also") refers to a claim that the source making the argument has spoken or acted in a way inconsistent with the argument. In particular, if Source A criticizes the actions of Source B, a tu quoque response is that Source A has acted in the same way. This argument is false because it does not
if the premise is true then Source A may be a , but this does not make the statement less credible from a logical perspective. Indeed, Source A may be in a position to provide personal testimony to support the argument.
For example, a father may tell his son not to start smoking as he will regret it when he is older, and the son may point out that his father is or was a smoker. This does not alter the fact that his son may regret smoking when he is older.
Ad hominem circumstantial points out that someone is in circumstances such that they are disposed to take a particular position. Ad hominem circumstantial constitutes an attack on the bias of a source. This is fallacious because a disposition to make a certain argument does not mak this overlaps with the
(an argument that a claim is incorrect due to its source).
The circumstantial fallacy applies only where the source taking a position is only making a logical argument from premises that are generally accepted. Where the source seeks to convince an audience of the truth of a premise by a claim of authority or by personal observation, observation of their circumstances may reduce the evidentiary weight of the claims, sometimes to zero.
's famous testimony during the , "He would [say that], wouldn't he?", is an example of a valid circumstantial argument. Her point was that a man in a prominent position, accused of an affair with a , would deny the claim whether it was true or false. His denial, in itself, provides little evidence against the claim of an affair.
Note well, however, that this argument is valid only insofar as it it does not strengthen the original claim. To construe invalid evidence of the denial as valid evidence of the original claim is fallacious (on several different bases, including that of argumentum ad hominem and appeal to emotions); however likely the man in question would be to deny an affair that did in fact happen, he is even more likely to deny an affair that never happened. (For example, inferring guilt from a denial -- or, less starkly, excessive devaluation of a denial -- is a very common feature in , , , , and other coercive circumstances in which the person targeted is presumed guilty.)
Glassner suggests that Bennett is somehow unqualified to criticize rap music because of positions Bennett has taken on other issues. However wrong Bennett may have been on other issues, such as the funding of public television or illegitimacy, that does not mean that his criticisms of rap were mistaken.
Main article:
Guilt by association can sometimes also be a type of ad hominem fallacy if the argument attacks a source because of the similarity between the views of someone making an argument and other proponents of the argument.
This form of the argument is as follows:
Source S makes claim C.
Group G, which is currently viewed negatively by the recipient, also makes claim C.
Therefore, source S is viewed by the recipient of the claim as associated to the group G and inherits how negatively viewed it is.
An example of this fallacy could be "My opponent for office just received an endorsement from the Puppy Haters Association. Is that the sort of person you would want to vote for?"
When a statement is challenged by making an ad hominem attack on its author, it is important to draw a distinction between whether the statement in question was an argument or a statement of fact (testimony). In the latter case the issues of the credibility of the person making the statement may be crucial.
, Canadian academic and author, has argued that ad hominem reasoning is not always fallacious, and that in some instances, questions of personal conduct, character, motives, etc., are legitimate and relevant to the issue, as when it directly involves hypocrisy, or actions contradicting the subject's words.
The philosopher
has argued that ad hominem reasoning (discussing facts about the speaker or author relative to the value of his statements) is essential to understanding certain moral issues due to the connection between individual persons and morality (or moral claims), and contrasts this sort of reasoning with the apodictic reasoning (involving facts beyond dispute or clearly established) of philosophical naturalism.
. . Merriam-Webster, Incorporated 2013.
Dr. Michael C. Labossiere ().
(PDF). p. 2.
(2008). Informal Logic: A Pragmatic Approach. Cambridge University Press. p. 190.
Bowell, T Kemp, Gary (2010). Critical Thinking: A Concise Guide. Abingdon, Oxon: Routledge. pp. 210–213.  .
Copi, Irving M. (1986). Informal Logic. Macmillan. pp. 112–113.  .
Walton, Douglas (1998). Ad Hominem Arguments. University of Alabama Press. pp. 18–21.  .
Curtis, Gary N. . Fallacy Files.
from the original on 20 September 2007.
Walton, Douglas (2008). Informal Logic: A Pragmatic Approach. Cambridge University Press. p. 170.
(1995). "Explanation and Practical Reason". . Harvard University Press. pp. 34–60.  .
Hurley, Patrick (2000). A Concise Introduction to Logic (7th ed.). Wadsworth. pp. 125–128, 182.  .
Copi, Irving M.; Cohen, Carl. Introduction to Logic (8th ed.). pp. 97–100.
(1998). Ad Hominem Arguments. Tuscaloosa: University Alabama Press.
in Wiktionary, the free dictionary.
(PDF). (70.2 KB)}

51无线网

ML ONline.AD 1198633966

我要回帖

更多推荐