yeah, sorry.  I commented out line 39: cd examples/bin

On May 20, 2011, at 1:58 PM, Jeff Eastman wrote:

> It does seem these two symptoms are of the same problem. I applied the patch; 
> however, and now neither option runs. It appears the cd is off but I can't 
> see where.
> 
> [dev@devbox mahout-distribution-0.5]$ time ./examples/bin/build-reuters.sh 
> Please select a number to choose the corresponding clustering algorithm
> 1. kmeans clustering
> 2. lda clustering
> Enter your choice : 1
> ok. You chose 1 and we'll use kmeans Clustering
> ./examples/bin/build-reuters.sh: line 54: ./bin/mahout: No such file or 
> directory
> ./examples/bin/build-reuters.sh: line 64: ./bin/mahout: No such file or 
> directory
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Grant Ingersoll [mailto:[email protected]] 
> Sent: Friday, May 20, 2011 10:50 AM
> To: [email protected]
> Subject: Re: Is LDA Broken?
> 
> Likely so, see MAHOUT-694.  
> 
> 
> On May 20, 2011, at 1:39 PM, Sean Owen wrote:
> 
>> Oh sorry these are the same issue? Great!
>> On May 20, 2011 5:44 PM, "Jake Mannix" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>> Looks like Grant got a fix posted? Has anyone else tried it?
>>> 
>>> -jake
>>> 
>>> On Fri, May 20, 2011 at 9:32 AM, Sean Owen <[email protected]> wrote:
>>> 
>>>> I think we definitely need to figure out whether it's a bug or some other
>>>> confusion. If it's a doesn't-work-at-all bug yes probably the kind of
>> thing
>>>> that needs a fix ASAP in which case write up all you know and everyone
>> will
>>>> pile in to look at it.
>>>> 
>>>> On Fri, May 20, 2011 at 5:29 PM, Jeff Eastman <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>> Is this an issue that should be fixed before we release? It seems to be
>>>>> broken to me.
>>>>> 
>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>> From: Jeff Eastman [mailto:[email protected]]
>>>>> Sent: Thursday, May 19, 2011 5:05 PM
>>>>> To: [email protected]
>>>>> Subject: Is LDA Broken?
>>>>> 
>>>>> I'm running build-reuters option 2 and the LDA runs to maxIterations
>> (20)
>>>>> without ever producing a non-zero Log Likelihood. This is not the
>>>> behavior
>>>>> that I recall from earlier runs and seems quite unlikely to be correct.
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>> 
> 
> 

--------------------------------------------
Grant Ingersoll
Join the LUCENE REVOLUTION
Lucene & Solr User Conference
May 25-26, San Francisco
www.lucenerevolution.org

Reply via email to