Heh. Mid air collision... On 11/17/05, Doug Cutting <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Yonik Seeley wrote: > > I'm worried about the impact of things like this: > > smallfloat(10) + smallfloat(1) + smallfloat(1) + smallfloat(1) -> 10 > > > > And it makes things very order dependent: > > smallfloat(1) + smallfloat(1) + smallfloat(1) + smallfloat(10) -> 12 > > 10 and 12 are pretty close scores, so while this is clearly not a good > thing, relevant and irrelevant documents are hopefully separated by more > than this.
Yeah, I was just hoping to be able to transparently change scorers, but if order of addition matters, one won't be able to match those scores. Maybe it's not so important. > > Also, epsilon related to the mantissa, not the exponent? > > That would make it 1/8, not 1/32. > > I'm not sure what you're saying. The current epsilon, with 3-bit > mantissa, is 1/8, right? With a five bit mantissa it would go to 1/32, no? Ahh. my mistake. I transposed 5 and 3 from your last email (I thought you were refering to the current norm encoding). > Right. Arguably we don't need numbers smaller than 1/100. A 4-bit > mantissa with a zero exponent point of 5 gives a minimum value of .0005 > and a max of 2M, plenty of range. A 5-bit mantissa with zero-exponent > point of 2 gives us a minimum of .03 and a max of around 2k, nearly the > desired range, but with greater precision. In your case above, 10+1+1 > would give 12, moreover 10+.5+.5 would give 11. I think this is > probably the best choice. What do you think? Hmmm, is .03->2000 really enough range? Seems like the choice is between that and .0005->2000000 will one less mantissa bit. I'm not really sure, but I guess it doesn't have to be decided now... it's easily changeable. -Yonik Now hiring -- http://forms.cnet.com/slink?231706 --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
