On Thu, 21 Jan 2016 13:19:20 +0100 Reindl Harald wrote: > Am 21.01.2016 um 13:11 schrieb RW: > > On Wed, 20 Jan 2016 22:21:49 -0800 > > Marc Perkel wrote: > > > >> OK - Just to show you this isn't Bayesian - see if you can do this. > >> > >> Here is a list of 5505874 words and phrases used in the subject > >> line of HAM and never seen in the subject line of SPAM > >> > >> http://www.junkemailfilter.com/data/subject-ham.txt > >> > >> Here is a list of 3494938 words and phrases used in the subject > >> line of SPAM and never seen in the subject line of HAM > >> > >> http://www.junkemailfilter.com/data/subject-spam.txt > >> > >> Hope you understand it now. Not Bayesian!!!! > > > > > > the only difference between > > > > > > "ambulatory care" -> only in ham > > "aall cards" -> only in spam > > > > and > > > > "ambulatory care" occurs 16 times in ham and 0 times in spam > > "aall cards" occurs 0 times in ham and 3 times in spam > > > > is that you have discarded the count information > > no entirely when "urrently, SA's bayes tokens are single words" from
Yes, obviously. The assertion was that it's doing something that a Bayesian filter can't - not specifically Bayes.
