Talk:N-gram: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 13:21, 19 October 2006

Merge Trigram and Bigram to N-Gram

They're just special cases. The bigram and trigram articles should be deleted, and their entries redirect to n-gram. 67.180.161.52 06:58, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See the point, but I vote no. There is so much literature (references) where 'bigram' or 'trigram' is the distinguishing feature that these will always be important topics in their own right (and there is some indication that bigram may be the 'fundamental unit' of neuonal computation).

So .. people will likely want to go to bigram as a topic. And it does have a special 'place'. Just as binary is a special case of all bases, and so deserves special treatment. quota 21:33, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with quota, although a more uniform treatment of bigram, trigram and n-gram would be nice... Skaakt 13:21, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Revision as of 21:33, 10 October 2006 edit Quota (talk \| contribs) Extended confirmed users 2,747 edits →Merge Trigram and Bigram to N-Gram: disagree ← Previous edit		Revision as of 13:21, 19 October 2006 edit undo Skaakt (talk \| contribs) 29 edits →Merge Trigram and Bigram to N-Gram: agree Next edit →
Line 6:		Line 6:

	So .. people will likely want to go to bigram as a topic. And it does have a special 'place'. Just as binary is a special case of all bases, and so deserves special treatment. [[User:Quota\|quota]] 21:33, 10 October 2006 (UTC)		So .. people will likely want to go to bigram as a topic. And it does have a special 'place'. Just as binary is a special case of all bases, and so deserves special treatment. [[User:Quota\|quota]] 21:33, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

			I agree with [[User:Quota\|quota]], although a more uniform treatment of bigram, trigram and n-gram would be nice... [[User:Skaakt\|Skaakt]] 13:21, 19 October 2006 (UTC)