Re: VMs: RE: RE: Best-fit 2-state PFSMs

["JH" <haleyj@xxxxxxxxxx>]

Hi Gabriel

I did all that ages ago. You eventually end up with a very manageable
alphabet
size.

The VMS fairy



----- Original Message -----
From: "Gabriel Landini" <G.Landini@xxxxxxxxxx>
To: <vms-list@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: 09 March 2005 13:11
Subject: Re: VMs: RE: RE: Best-fit 2-state PFSMs


> On Wednesday 09 March 2005 09:10, Nick Pelling wrote:
> > Perhaps the best approach might simply be to compare the curves of (best
> > fit PFSM's information content) vs (number of states in the PFSM) for
> > different transcriptions? I'd predict that the best transcription should
> > show a sharp drop in information content once a critical number of
states
> > is included... just a thought! :-o
>
> There may be something in that. I have been thinking for some time on a
> similar idea: whether it is possible to investigate the optimum size of
the
> alphabet by graphing the number of unexplained occurrences at the expense
of
> "contiguous character" amalgamation. Perhaps this can be done using the
> digraph or trigraph frequencies of frogguy, jsa or eva (or whatever):
accept
> as a "new character" the n-graphs which have the highest frequency and
count
> the number of other n-graphs (and their frequencies) that become
unaccounted
> for.
> I wonder if there is some transition point that indicates a sudden
increase of
> "unexplainability" (what a word!) and if so, whether this is near the true
> alphabet size...
> Jacques, any comments?
>
> Cheers,
>
> Gabriel


______________________________________________________________________
To unsubscribe, send mail to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxx with a body saying:
unsubscribe vms-list