[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [bpfk] CLL errata check: lujvo scoring
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.
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?
-Robin
--
http://singinst.org/ : Our last, best hope for a fantastic future.
Lojban (http://www.lojban.org/): The language in which "this parrot
is dead" is "ti poi spitaki cu morsi", but "this sentence is false"
is "na nei". My personal page: http://www.digitalkingdom.org/rlp/
--
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.