Talk:Apriori algorithm

message: Is it correct to surround the items with curly braces when they are pairs or triplets?  Most people reading the article will know what is meant, but strictly speaking the set {1, 2, 3, 4} does not contain the set {1, 2} (this one does:  {{1, 2}, 3, 4}).  So in the tables in the example, I'm saying that under the "Item" column, we should not say {1, 2} but maybe rename the column to Items and just list 1 and 2 without the curly brackets.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.212.215.11 (talk) 17:26, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I tried to improve this example and make it always clear by saying "x is a superset of y" rather than "x contains y". --a3_nm (talk) 13:57, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Set Notation 

message: The first version of this page included a good definition and pseudocode that I wrote. I now see that, some wise person has removed the pseudocode, where is the algorithm? Without an explanation of the algorithm, this page is useless. I'm going to add it back, this is unacceptable Exa (talk)
It would be very useful to include a bit more context here, and perhaps a more conceptual (as opposed to mathematical) definition. Also, if we use variable/set symbols, they should probably be defined explicitly within the article. As it is written now, I suspect the only people who would understand the article are those people who are already familiar with the topic (i.e. those who already understand it, and thus don't need the article).
12.64.120.218 15:34, 31 May 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removal of important content 

message: AFAIK, this is the Apriori algorithm, but the page is entitled A priori algorithm. I'm going to move it. --aciel 16:57, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Page title 

message: Please someone generate the "list of all 3-triples of the frequent items" at the end of the example --ooscarr (talk) 07:19, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Example 

message: : Lots of jargon (some of which is redlinked), without a good explanation of what it's supposed to mean.
: The algorithm block is ugly.  It's set in monospace with LaTeX blocks on part of the line, meaning bits are rendered as images and others are rendered as plain text.  Not really a suitable format.  Would suggest stripping the leading spaces, instead using the :-prefix, along with making full statements in math markup (spacing commands are available, such as \,).
: There is one sentence explaining in brief that it's an algorithm, then dives deep into the technical detail.  Needs a much better WP:LEAD section, and I'm not in a position where I can write one.
:PS: ironically, \LaTeX and \TeX are not supported by the LaTeX extension.
-- 81.104.165.184 22:13, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Boilerplate messages 

message: Cleanup Co-ordination	Cleanup Co-ordination
                     	This article has recently been tagged as requiring cleanup to meet Wikipedia's quality standards.
The article may have been flagged as needing cleanup because it has been suggested that:
*the article needs formatting, proofreading, or rephrasing in comprehensible English. 
*the article has multiple overlapping problems. 
*the article is very short and might need expanding, removal or merging with a broader article
For a full list of possible problems see Wikipedia:Manual of Style.
As part of the cleanup process, the automated bot PocKleanBot has generated this notice as a focus of cleanup efforts, and also contacted several contributing editors of the article to bring their attention to the problem. You should use this section to discuss possible resolution of the problem and achieve consensus for action. Only when there is a consensus that the article is now cleaned up should you then de-list it by deleting the cleanup tag from the article, this causes the article to drop off the monthly cleanup-needed list page.
===Discussion===    	
===Discussion===
In the first sentence of the first paragraph, we say that Apriori is for transactional data.  Then we say that (all?) other algorithms are for finding association rules on non-transactional data, which is obviously not the case.
Also, is Apriori really for "learning association rules"?  To me it looks like the output of the algorithm is a set of frequencies of data per transaction, not a set of association rules.  
Also, Winepi and Minepi are not examples of data, they are algorithms, so, if included at all, they should be in brackets after the words "Other algorithms", and not after the words "data having no transactions".  
Also, I can't figure out why we're mentioning timestamps and DNA sequencing in the last sentence of the first paragraph.  First we say Apriori is for transactional data, then we say there are other algorithms for non-transactional data... as far as I can tell, that covers all the cases:  transactional and non-transactional... so why do we go on to talk about data that has no timestamp?  We are implying that data with no timestamp is neither transactional nor non-transactional, aren't we?  So is this a Schroedinger's Cat kind of thing?  (Sarcasm.)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.212.215.11 (talk) 17:53, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article Cleanup Co-Ordination Point 

message: |}</div>
In the first sentence of the first paragraph, we say that Apriori is for transactional data.  Then we say that (all?) other algorithms are for finding association rules on non-transactional data, which is obviously not the case.
Also, is Apriori really for "learning association rules"?  To me it looks like the output of the algorithm is a set of frequencies of data per transaction, not a set of association rules.  
Also, Winepi and Minepi are not examples of data, they are algorithms, so, if included at all, they should be in brackets after the words "Other algorithms", and not after the words "data having no transactions".  
Also, I can't figure out why we're mentioning timestamps and DNA sequencing in the last sentence of the first paragraph.  First we say Apriori is for transactional data, then we say there are other algorithms for non-transactional data... as far as I can tell, that covers all the cases:  transactional and non-transactional... so why do we go on to talk about data that has no timestamp?  We are implying that data with no timestamp is neither transactional nor non-transactional, aren't we?  So is this a Schroedinger's Cat kind of thing?  (Sarcasm.)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.212.215.11 (talk) 17:53, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Discussion

message: You can edit or download sample code for this algorithm  at:
1. Data Mining C# simple Apriori code by  thsot
In console mode
2.C# APRIORI ALGORITHM SOURCE CODE RELEASE - 2001 VERSION FOR MARKET BASKET ANALYSIS
Copyright by http://www.kdkeys.net/
Writer :thepbac-Vietnamese  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thepbac (talk • contribs) 04:53, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  Can someone write an example code in any programming language and post in this article? 64.128.27.82 (talk)  —Preceding undated comment added 16:21, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Programing code 

message: What does this even mean?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.153.126.238 (talk) 12:22, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Large 1 - itemsets ? 

message: This article doesn't feel encyclopedic. The  Association Rules article seems to cover this topic sufficiently well. It appears that this article hasn't had any appreciable attention since RichardWeiss's refimprove from several years ago, to say nothing of the previous decade of obviously confused comments here in the talk page.
PERSONAL USER EXPERIENCE: Despite having used the algorithm several times, this article seems more confusing than helpful. Especially given the refimprove, the Association Rules article seems sufficient.
As such, I'm replacing refimprove with a PROD. Happy to be overruled though! Ipsherman (talk) 04:01, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed Deletion (PROD) 

message: Either I'm missing something or there's a problem in Example 2. It says that both {1,3} and {1,4} are infrequent, and therefor they should be pruned. Both of those pairs appear in the first set {1,2,3,4}, so to my understanding based on the text that set should be pruned. If it is pruned, though, then there is only one instance of the triple {2,3,4} remaining, not two. If I am wrong, then I was mislead by the explanation and we need to fix that. But if I'm right then we need to fix the example. --Eliyahu S Talk 01:12, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Example 2 - Mistake?