From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
X-Msuck: nntp://news.gmane.io/gmane.emacs.gnus.general/9118
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: 06 Dec 1996 11:39:51 +0100
Sender: larsi@proletcult.slip.ifi.uio.no
Message-ID: <m2ral40xe0.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>
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 1035149191 16572 80.91.224.250 (20 Oct 2002 21:26:31 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: usenet@main.gmane.org
NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 20 Oct 2002 21:26:31 +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 DAA27885 for <steve@miranova.com>; Fri, 6 Dec 1996 03:24:15 -0800
Original-Received: from proletcult.slip.ifi.uio.no (root@ppp15.larris.ifi.uio.no [129.240.68.115]) by ifi.uio.no with ESMTP (8.6.11/ifi2.4) 
	id <MAA22002@ifi.uio.no> for <ding@ifi.uio.no> ; Fri, 6 Dec 1996 12:10:11 +0100
Original-Received: (from larsi@localhost) by proletcult.slip.ifi.uio.no (8.8.2/8.8.2) id LAA18685; Fri, 6 Dec 1996 11:39:54 +0100
Original-To: ding@ifi.uio.no
In-Reply-To: Sean Lynch's message of 05 Dec 1996 13:21:45 -0800
Original-Lines: 19
X-Mailer: Red Gnus v0.74/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:9118
X-Report-Spam: http://spam.gmane.org/gmane.emacs.gnus.general:9118

Sean Lynch <seanl@Internex.NET> writes:

> I remember reading earlier in this thread about the possibility of
> rating words based on interestingness, and I think this is probably
> the way to go.  The fundamental theorem of information theory tells us
> that the value of any piece of information is inversely proportional
> to its probability of occurrence.  Therefore, we should keep some sort
> of history of the number of occurrences of each word in the adaptive
> scoring criteria (i.e. the subject lines) and estimate the probability
> of each word's occurrence, weighting the affect of each word on the
> final score by the inverse of the probability.

Would it suffice to calculate this on the fly (from the articles
currently in the summary buffer), or does this have to be stored in a
database? 

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