On Sat, 2005-06-04 at 11:47 +0530, Joshua N Pritikin wrote: > On Fri, 2005-06-03 at 19:05 -0500, William L. Jarrold wrote: > > Also, for 4, why not start simple and follow occam's razor. If so, we > > should first identify stories that win as the most believable for the > > unary status of goal. Or the unary status of no-goal. Or the unary > > status of anti-goal. It would seem to me that we have to do that before > > we do goal pairs. > > Your proposal is ironic because that is essentially what the current web > site is doing -- goal-pairs are created by combining two unary goals > using the min function. Min usually works OK, but sometimes gives false > positives. Eventually, I probably want to collect data on proper > goal-pairs instead of only synthesizing them from unary goals.
Hey, maybe that's an idea for a study: Can the believability of a goal-pair be estimated by combining the believability of two unary goals with the min() function?
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
_______________________________________________ Heartlogic-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/heartlogic-dev
