Anonymous user
Talk:Dinesman's multiple-dwelling problem: Difference between revisions
Talk:Dinesman's multiple-dwelling problem (view source)
Revision as of 01:26, 26 June 2011
, 12 years agofutile or trivially useless, pick one
(→Why stated like that?: Futile exageration?) |
(futile or trivially useless, pick one) |
||
Line 10:
:About the python solution: parsing natural language is FUTILE unless you specify a clear subset of English language you are going to use. Is your program able to parse "A lives somewhere below B"? Or "A's floor is no higher than 4"? Or if one of the characters involved is in fact named "Mr. Floor?" I don't think one should go on writing a parser without a clear spec of what text might be involved. --[[User:Ledrug|Ledrug]] 00:47, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
::Hmm [http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/futile futile]? I think not. But I did recognise a need to state the extent of the language recognised but chose, out of expediency, to instead state some of the variations allowed and give a single extra example. The type of variation allowed and showed in the Python example, such as not relying on fixed names is more than that shown in some other examples. --[[User:Paddy3118|Paddy3118]] 01:13, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
:::A proper task needs to specify what's allowed and what's not in the input text. The "variation" the python script can cope with are really not much variation at all, consider "Fletcher lives on a floor not adjacent to Miller's, but rather Smith's". Parse <i>that</i>, just the name part, then consider how many other ways that can be expressed in. Writing a parser for a known string isn't really all that useful --
:::And we haven't gotten to the part of optimizing the code itself yet: what happens when there are twenty tenents? J code runs out of memory, every other one takes eaons to complete, if at all. But that's another can of worms. --[[User:Ledrug|Ledrug]] 01:26, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
| |||