From bpfk-list+bncCN673cmqFBCz553mBBoEw4NvvA@googlegroups.com Tue Oct 26 17:35:17 2010 Received: from mail-gw0-f61.google.com ([74.125.83.61]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1PAtyx-0002Ke-23; Tue, 26 Oct 2010 17:35:17 -0700 Received: by gwj20 with SMTP id 20sf168316gwj.16 for ; Tue, 26 Oct 2010 17:35:05 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=googlegroups.com; s=beta; h=domainkey-signature:received:x-beenthere:received:received:received :received:received-spf:received:received:x-vr-score :x-authority-analysis:x-cm-score:message-id:date:from:user-agent :x-accept-language:mime-version:to:subject:references:in-reply-to :x-original-sender:x-original-authentication-results:reply-to :precedence:mailing-list:list-id:list-post:list-help:list-archive :sender:list-subscribe:list-unsubscribe:content-type; bh=R4DoJpwdRqppoMkxCc3kiFLd68VZsngo6/MV3RFzVww=; b=GHBveuF4Xw5m9vgzmsvb9NbK83+KJ2Uo7NfpIL7+aw8L2nJAEsnUS9LH1ZFNbb0Yha 00+C0LDMNTwZBgSm/gFNa8VlKrTi/2BC0TDa0BmC6505uTbdh64fyh2Uw/ertJW0PO1z VLWwuuc6Bfy+0JZYEmbTFekmA/cWrJSW2dVOk= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=googlegroups.com; s=beta; h=x-beenthere:received-spf:x-vr-score:x-authority-analysis:x-cm-score :message-id:date:from:user-agent:x-accept-language:mime-version:to :subject:references:in-reply-to:x-original-sender :x-original-authentication-results:reply-to:precedence:mailing-list :list-id:list-post:list-help:list-archive:sender:list-subscribe :list-unsubscribe:content-type; b=zHXMmfjygRUKSYlvodvvUB9dwa56CELh1Lt/7dG3mR1biA5/kwUnVwYAkwf+1kbVm8 x98R+IXsyj42QNpNaApBAylQ9G04GdjJ/prC9q/glb2m/7afcOcJG+UkkvLCgZoPrdjZ 0r86KWwt8N37mXazrPtnX+Wsliz/1SL7RBF6M= Received: by 10.90.15.17 with SMTP id 17mr2101ago.40.1288139699128; Tue, 26 Oct 2010 17:34:59 -0700 (PDT) X-BeenThere: bpfk-list@googlegroups.com Received: by 10.100.231.3 with SMTP id d3ls84008anh.7.p; Tue, 26 Oct 2010 17:34:58 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.100.226.8 with SMTP id y8mr2477894ang.5.1288139698783; Tue, 26 Oct 2010 17:34:58 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.100.226.8 with SMTP id y8mr2477893ang.5.1288139698773; Tue, 26 Oct 2010 17:34:58 -0700 (PDT) Received: from eastrmmtao107.cox.net (eastrmmtao107.cox.net [68.230.240.59]) by gmr-mx.google.com with ESMTP id q5si3674465anf.9.2010.10.26.17.34.58; Tue, 26 Oct 2010 17:34:58 -0700 (PDT) Received-SPF: neutral (google.com: 68.230.240.59 is neither permitted nor denied by best guess record for domain of lojbab@lojban.org) client-ip=68.230.240.59; Received: from eastrmimpo02.cox.net ([68.1.16.120]) by eastrmmtao107.cox.net (InterMail vM.8.00.01.00 201-2244-105-20090324) with ESMTP id <20101027003458.REAJ21335.eastrmmtao107.cox.net@eastrmimpo02.cox.net> for ; Tue, 26 Oct 2010 20:34:58 -0400 Received: from [192.168.0.100] ([70.179.118.163]) by eastrmimpo02.cox.net with bizsmtp id Pcat1f0013Xcbvq02catCa; Tue, 26 Oct 2010 20:34:58 -0400 X-VR-Score: -100.00 X-Authority-Analysis: v=1.1 cv=jWv40Kl5NTGI9KZdh1k+rEL6V5nVMQKFJ60mAe8LY/o= c=1 sm=1 a=mTweW3EOjfIA:10 a=8nJEP1OIZ-IA:10 a=7ls7RdmwX4RvLZNVULbZcg==:17 a=IhgyBVYd4Gjs_xWNoskA:9 a=I3VRl2_8zlfrsowVXlsA:7 a=SHmJuN_IjcBspobZC1AjUNCckOUA:4 a=wPNLvfGTeEIA:10 a=7ls7RdmwX4RvLZNVULbZcg==:117 X-CM-Score: 0.00 Message-ID: <4CC7732E.3060808@lojban.org> Date: Tue, 26 Oct 2010 20:32:46 -0400 From: Robert LeChevalier User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0.7 (Windows/20050923) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: bpfk-list@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: [bpfk] CLL errata check: lujvo scoring References: <20101026061117.GJ1105@digitalkingdom.org> <20101026063822.GK1105@digitalkingdom.org> <20101026063932.GL1105@digitalkingdom.org> <7.0.1.0.2.20101026134742.01f61b78@cox.net> <20101026180046.GN1105@digitalkingdom.org> In-Reply-To: <20101026180046.GN1105@digitalkingdom.org> X-Original-Sender: lojbab@lojban.org X-Original-Authentication-Results: gmr-mx.google.com; spf=neutral (google.com: 68.230.240.59 is neither permitted nor denied by best guess record for domain of lojbab@lojban.org) smtp.mail=lojbab@lojban.org Reply-To: bpfk-list@googlegroups.com Precedence: list Mailing-list: list bpfk-list@googlegroups.com; contact bpfk-list+owners@googlegroups.com List-ID: List-Post: , List-Help: , List-Archive: Sender: bpfk-list@googlegroups.com List-Subscribe: , List-Unsubscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Robin Lee Powell wrote: > On Tue, Oct 26, 2010 at 01:56:00PM -0400, Nora LeChevalier wrote: > >>At 02:39 AM 10/26/2010, Robin wrote: >> >>>Oh, also, it means the actual formally written out immediately >>>before is wrong, and possibly some of the surrounding verbiage. >>> >>>It also makes negative lujvo possible, which seems icky. >>> >>>-Robin >> >>[snip] >> >>>>On Tue, Oct 26, 2010 at 02:33:56AM -0400, John Cowan wrote: >>>> >>>>>At the last minute we (which I think means Nora) decided to subtract >>>>>everything from 32500 so that higher values = better lujvo. 12.1 >>>>>obviously got missed, so your fix is just the wrong way round. >> >> In the program, a max of 6 pieces was handled. > > > Ah. That changes things. > > >>Looking at calculations in my lujvo-making program ( I presume this >>is what you're referring to?), higher is better score: >> >> >> Luj.LujScore := (32 - length(Luj.Lujvo)) * 1000 >> + ApostTot * 500 >> + (5 - HyphenCount) * 100 >> + TypeTot * 10 >> + VowelTot; > > > Thaaaaaaat's not *remotely* like what's in *any* version of the > book. Every book version has both positive and negative segments. > It also doesn't have the 6 piece limit. Actually it is almost identical to the book examples (with the 32500 subtraction). You just have to expand the formula algebraically. The above becomes 32000 - (1000 * L) + (500 * A) + 500 - (100 * H) + (10 * R) + V which is the same as subtracting the book formula from 32500 (flipping all the signs): (1000 * L) - (500 * A) + (100 * H) - (10 * R) - V becomes 32500 - (1000 * L) + (500 * A) - (100 * H) + (10 * R) + V which is Nora's equation. > I'd really prefer to change the book as little as possible. That > means lower score is better. Is it *really* important that we flip > it around, especially at the expense of limiting the alg's > applicability? It isn't important at all. Indeed, the parenthetical in the first paragraph of section 12.1 shows that flipping it was the explicit intent. John (apparently) changed it from highest scoring to lowest scoring (probably to eliminate the 6 rafsi limit) but didn't correctly change the example calculations. So make them match the formula in the book (which requires removing the "32500 -" and adjusting other signs to exactly match the formula, and then using a calculator to get the correct total for the low-scoring algorithm; I think only 12.3 has the correct total for the stated formula, if my head-calculator is working and I flipped the right signs.) lojbab -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "BPFK" group. To post to this group, send email to bpfk-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to bpfk-list+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/bpfk-list?hl=en.