From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
X-Msuck: nntp://news.gmane.io/gmane.emacs.gnus.general/9174
Path: main.gmane.org!not-for-mail
From: Lars Magne Ingebrigtsen <larsi@ifi.uio.no>
Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.gnus.general
Subject: Re: adaptive word scoring
Date: 11 Dec 1996 01:44:13 +0100
Sender: larsi@proletcult.slip.ifi.uio.no
Message-ID: <m2rakxzz8i.fsf@proletcult.slip.ifi.uio.no>
References: <199611290525.VAA00464@kim.teleport.com>  <yahlobh2mpz.fsf@twi.tudelft.nl> <9612021508.AA23722@stud2.tuwien.ac.at> <m2ral4rfjj.fsf@proletcult.slip.ifi.uio.no> <rhsafrsn0uu.fsf@internex.net> <m2ral40xe0.fsf@proletcult.slip.ifi.uio.no> <rhsg21gr857.fsf@internex.net>
NNTP-Posting-Host: coloc-standby.netfonds.no
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Trace: main.gmane.org 1035149239 16879 80.91.224.250 (20 Oct 2002 21:27:19 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: usenet@main.gmane.org
NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 20 Oct 2002 21:27:19 +0000 (UTC)
Return-Path: <ding-request@ifi.uio.no>
Original-Received: from ifi.uio.no (0@ifi.uio.no [129.240.64.2])
          by deanna.miranova.com (8.8.4/8.8.4) with SMTP
	  id RAA22196 for <steve@miranova.com>; Tue, 10 Dec 1996 17:51:38 -0800
Original-Received: from proletcult.slip.ifi.uio.no (root@ppp18.larris.ifi.uio.no [129.240.68.118]) by ifi.uio.no with ESMTP (8.6.11/ifi2.4) 
	id <CAA19478@ifi.uio.no> for <ding@ifi.uio.no> ; Wed, 11 Dec 1996 02:42:17 +0100
Original-Received: (from larsi@localhost) by proletcult.slip.ifi.uio.no (8.8.2/8.8.2) id BAA28382; Wed, 11 Dec 1996 01:44:14 +0100
Original-To: ding@ifi.uio.no
In-Reply-To: Sean Lynch's message of 08 Dec 1996 14:19:48 -0800
Original-Lines: 16
X-Mailer: Red Gnus v0.75/Emacs 19.34
X-Face: &w!^oO<W.WBH]FsTP:P0f9X6M-ygaADlA_)eF$<UwQzj7:C=Gi<a?/_4$LX^@$Qq7-O&XHp
 lDARi8e8iT<(A$LWAZD*xjk^')/wI5nG;1cNB>~dS|}-P0~ge{$c!h\<y
Xref: main.gmane.org gmane.emacs.gnus.general:9174
X-Report-Spam: http://spam.gmane.org/gmane.emacs.gnus.general:9174

Sean Lynch <seanl@Internex.NET> writes:

> If we only use the articles in the current summary buffer, our
> estimates of word probabilities would vary wildly depending on the
> number of articles, day of the week, direction of the wind, etc.  So I
> think that we should probably keep the counts in some sort of
> database, unless someone has a better idea.

Right.  Well, this is something that'll have to wait until Mamey
Sapote Gnus in any case, so instead of doing anything about it myself,
I'll just wait for somebody who knows something about probabilities
and that, like, *math* stuff to program this.  :-)

-- 
(domestic pets only, the antidote for overdose, milk.)
  larsi@ifi.uio.no * Lars Ingebrigtsen