Talk:Changeable words: Difference between revisions
→Committeeperson and committeepeople: Reply
Thundergnat (talk | contribs) (→task requirement wording: obscure?!! Hamming distance is obscure?) |
|||
| (14 intermediate revisions by 5 users not shown) | |||
Line 28:
I would re-word the task's requirements as:
Line 64:
::::<quote>''The "Hamming distance of one" excludes a deletion of one character''</quote> Ah, because that would be a '''[[Levenshtein distance]]''' of one. <quote>''Hamming distance of one might be obscure''</quote>, <quote>''it is very hard to research your problem as you don't have the key words/phrases to aid your search''</quote> I challenge you to put "Hamming distance" and "Changeable words" in to the search engine of your choice and see which gives more relevant information about what that might be. Just because some theoretical reader doesn't know what "Hamming distance" is, doesn't mean we shouldn't call it what it is and what the rest of the world calls it. --[[User:Thundergnat|Thundergnat]] ([[User talk:Thundergnat|talk]]) 12:35, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
:::::If they don't know the word Hamming, they can't search for it. --[[User:Paddy3118|Paddy3118]] ([[User talk:Paddy3118|talk]]) 20:48, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
:::::: I had the same sentiment (and similar discussion) about ''anomalous cancellation'', ... is that kinda like some aberrant unknown entity canceling something or another? But, back to the point, the first thing I think of when I see "hamming" is either hamming it up (on stage), or a drinking a beer or two or three. -- [[User:Gerard Schildberger|Gerard Schildberger]] ([[User talk:Gerard Schildberger|talk]]) 21:33, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
:::::: <quote>''If they don't know the word Hamming, they can't search for it.''</quote> And if they '''do''' know the word Hamming, they are completely out of luck finding this task. If the name of the task ''was'' Hamming distance and this theoretical person thought "Hmmm. I have no idea what a Hamming distance is, I wonder what [[wp:Hamming distance|wikipedia]] has to say about it? Oh, Ok." vs "Hmmm. I have no idea what a Changeable word is is, I wonder what [[wp:Changeable word|wikipedia]] has to say about it? Oh. Nothing whatsoever." I don't see any advantage in calling it some made-up name when an actual name for the desired operation is well established. Arguments like "Well ''I've'' never heard of it before, sounds like something some redneck would do." when well known names from fairly reputable references are pointed out doesn't really bolster your position much. All of this started as debate over what the task exactly is calling for. Call it what it is, and the confusion would largely disappear. --[[User:Thundergnat|Thundergnat]] ([[User talk:Thundergnat|talk]]) 00:17, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
:::::::Adding ''[[Levenshtein distance]] of one'' to the task description might aid both types of searches whilst preserving the original aim of the task. It would, however, invalidatet hose examples that did not check for a single deletion of a character. --[[User:Paddy3118|Paddy3118]] ([[User talk:Paddy3118|talk]]) 16:07, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
::::::::Well, in that case, we may as well change the name to [[Levenshtein_distance|Levenshtein distance... again]] and then delete it for being a duplicate task. --[[User:Thundergnat|Thundergnat]] ([[User talk:Thundergnat|talk]]) 22:55, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
==Committeeperson and committeepeople==
Regarding the suggested use of the Hamming distance and making the task be find the words whose Hamming distance is 1, if I read the Wikipedia article (and its Python sample code) correctly, the Hamming distance between "committeeperson" and "committeepeople" isn't 1, yet a number of samples show this pair? --[[User:Tigerofdarkness|Tigerofdarkness]] ([[User talk:Tigerofdarkness|talk]]) 15:14, 12 November 2023 (UTC)
:The unixdict.txt I have, doesn't contain "committeepeople", however, using a fiie that does, the AWK and C samples don't find "committeeperson" and "committeepeople", yet show it in theirt output. I also can't see how the Ada sample code would find that match either, though the output claims it does. I haven't looked at other samples that show this pair. --[[User:Tigerofdarkness|Tigerofdarkness]] ([[User talk:Tigerofdarkness|talk]]) 15:33, 12 November 2023 (UTC)
::|Looking through the page history, it seems that someone didn't like "committeewoman" and "committeewomen" and made a global change - back in 2021. I'm about to restore the originals. --[[User:Tigerofdarkness|Tigerofdarkness]] ([[User talk:Tigerofdarkness|talk]]) 15:51, 12 November 2023 (UTC)
:::Restored. --[[User:Tigerofdarkness|Tigerofdarkness]] ([[User talk:Tigerofdarkness|talk]]) 16:19, 12 November 2023 (UTC)
::::How very odd! It's actually even worse than you thought as "congresswoman" and "councilwoman"have also been changed. Do you want to restore them or shall I? [[User:PureFox|PureFox]] ([[User talk:PureFox|talk]]) 16:40, 12 November 2023 (UTC)
:::::I should have noticed that ! Feel free to change them back. Either it was an "April fool" joke or someone being politically correct, I assume... --[[User:Tigerofdarkness|Tigerofdarkness]] ([[User talk:Tigerofdarkness|talk]]) 16:54, 12 November 2023 (UTC)
::::::As the change was made on April 9, it's a bit late for an April fool and, if one were trying to be politically correct, I'd have though you'd change words like "upperclassman" to "upperclassperson". Anyway, well spotted (I did a minor change to the Wren entry earlier but didn't even look at the output). I'll restore the other words so everthing's back in kilter again :) [[User:PureFox|PureFox]] ([[User talk:PureFox|talk]]) 17:06, 12 November 2023 (UTC)
| |||