QuILT-2 - Laptörténet

Pitlik: /* About the log-based evaluation */

2018-12-11T14:49:01Z

‎About the log-based evaluation

Pitlik: /* About the log-based evaluation */

2018-12-11T14:46:30Z

‎About the log-based evaluation

Pitlik: /* About the log-based evaluation */

2018-12-11T14:29:42Z

‎About the log-based evaluation

Pitlik: /* About the log-based evaluation */

2018-12-11T14:27:12Z

‎About the log-based evaluation

Pitlik: /* About the log-based evaluation */

2018-12-11T14:17:59Z

‎About the log-based evaluation

Pitlik: /* About the log-based evaluation */

2018-12-11T14:07:01Z

‎About the log-based evaluation

Pitlik: /* About the log-based evaluation */

2018-12-11T13:40:33Z

‎About the log-based evaluation

Pitlik: /* About the log-based evaluation */

2018-12-11T13:35:56Z

‎About the log-based evaluation

Pitlik: /* About the log-based evaluation */

2018-12-10T13:12:01Z

‎About the log-based evaluation

Pitlik: /* About the log-based evaluation */

2018-12-10T12:51:27Z

‎About the log-based evaluation

@@ 83. sor: / 83. sor: @@
 '''
-S(7): I think, it seems to be correct - but, but, I also think: we need to have at least a further interpretation and its shortened version like somebody can make a bad decision because s/he has no idea, what s/he have to think about... in a shortened form: lack of ideas or rather unknowingness?! Insularity and the unknowingness have no overlapping effects. Person without any ideas build a closed group and further person, who has any ideas, but these are wrong, can not be got mixed up with persons without any ideas. Therefore, new interpretations may only declare new forms of wrong ideas...
+S(7): I think, it seems to be correct - but, but, I also think: we need to have at least a further interpretation and its shortened version like somebody can make a bad decision because s/he has no idea, what s/he have to think about... in a shortened form: lack of ideas or rather unknowingness?! Insularity and the unknowingness have no overlapping effects. Person without any ideas build a closed group and further person, who has any ideas, but these are wrong, can not be got mixed up with persons without any ideas. Therefore, new interpretations may only declare new forms of wrong ideas... Could formulate somebody new misunderstandings?
-'''T: Good, very good!
+'''T: Good, very good! Well! We have to focus on our main message - it means on the phenomenon of the log-based evaluation!
 '''

@@ 75. sor: / 75. sor: @@
 '''
 '''As you can see, the meanings of the words are not really the same. But, is the context the same one like before these was set as synonyms?
-And now - back to the future! (https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0088763/)
+And now - back to the future! (https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0088763/) It means (using an half-arbitrary association to a famous movie), back to the point, actually to the set of the interpretations behind wrong decisions.
 '''

@@ 61. sor: / 61. sor: @@
 S(7): In the meantime, I have created the first interpretation behind a wrong decision.
-'''T: Stop, please, for a moment! Your last sentence had two of our previous synonyms : interpretation and decision. If the three words are really identical, then each word could be substituted by each other. The proof is in the pudding! (Please, do not forget to inspect the recommended book about the adverbs...) Well! The substituted variants, here you are:
+'''T: Stop, please, for a moment! Your last sentence had two of our previous synonyms : interpretation and decision. If the three words are really identical, then each word could be substituted by each other. The proof is in the pudding! (Please, do not forget to inspect the recommended book about the adverbs...) Well! The substituted variants, here you are:'''
-*I have created the first interpretation behind a wrong decision. (this was said instinctively)
+*'''I have created the first interpretation behind a wrong decision. (this was said instinctively)
-*I have created the first decision behind a wrong interpretation. (it seems to be very incorrect)
+'''
-*I have created the first interpretation behind a wrong choice. (it could also have been said)
+*'''I have created the first decision behind a wrong interpretation. (it seems to be very incorrect)
-*I have created the first decision behind a wrong choice. (it seems to be very incorrect too)
+'''
-*I have created the first choice behind a wrong interpretation. (it seems to be very incorrect)
+*'''I have created the first interpretation behind a wrong choice. (it could also have been said)
-*I have created the first choice behind a wrong decision. (it seems to be very incorrect too)
+'''
-As you can see, the meanings of the words are not really the same. But, is the context the same one like before these was set as synonyms?
+*'''I have created the first decision behind a wrong choice. (it seems to be very incorrect too)
 And now - back to the future! (https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0088763/)
-It means (using an half-arbitrary association to a famous movie), back to the
+It means (using an half-arbitrary association to a famous movie), back to the point, actually to the set of the interpretations behind wrong decisions

@@ 56. sor: / 56. sor: @@
 S(4): Why did you use parallel words before like choice-interpretation-decision?
-'''T: You have a good instinct to ask! A good question ensures the half way to the expected results. With other words: the right question is  half the battle! :-)''' BTW: I have a book for you - just here and now, but - I think - it will be interesting enough for everybody loving languages. The book has a simple title: Dictionary of PROVERBS (Penguin: https://www.bookdepository.com/Penguin-Dictionary-Proverbs-Rosalind-Fergusson/9780833505972) But we should go back to the question about the synonyms. Words can have a few relations to each other: like "is-a", "kind-of" (e.g. Audi is a car, red is a kind of color), has-a/part-of (e.g. the car has a brake - the brake is a part of the car), etc. (https://protege.stanford.edu/publications/ontology_development/ontology101-noy-mcguinness.html). Words can also have hierarchical connections: bugs vs. insects (https://terminixno.com/if-all-bugs-are-insects-are-all-insects-bugs/), where the well-known question is: If all bugs are insects, are all insects bugs? The answer is: Nope. All bugs are insects, but not all insects are bugs. An association is a specific connection between words: Dan Brown --> Da Vinci Code --> Mona Lisa, etc. After all these puzzle pieces: it is always relevant to declare, what kind of expression should be seen as the same ones or what kind of expressions are just stylistic substitutes of each other in a given context. Here and now: choice/decision/interpretation should be handled as the same ones.
+'''T: You have a good instinct to ask! A good question ensures the half way to the expected results. With other words: the right question is  half the battle! :-) BTW: I have a book for you - just here and now, but - I think - it will be interesting enough for everybody loving languages. The book has a simple title: Dictionary of PROVERBS (Penguin: https://www.bookdepository.com/Penguin-Dictionary-Proverbs-Rosalind-Fergusson/9780833505972) But we should go back to the question about the synonyms. Words can have a few relations to each other: like "is-a", "kind-of" (e.g. Audi is a car, red is a kind of color), has-a/part-of (e.g. the car has a brake - the brake is a part of the car), etc. (https://protege.stanford.edu/publications/ontology_development/ontology101-noy-mcguinness.html). Words can also have hierarchical connections: bugs vs. insects (https://terminixno.com/if-all-bugs-are-insects-are-all-insects-bugs/), where the well-known question is: If all bugs are insects, are all insects bugs? The answer is: Nope. All bugs are insects, but not all insects are bugs. An association is a specific connection between words: Dan Brown --> Da Vinci Code --> Mona Lisa, etc. After all these puzzle pieces: it is always relevant to declare, what kind of expression should be seen as the same ones or what kind of expressions are just stylistic substitutes of each other in a given context. Here and now: choice/decision/interpretation should be handled as the same ones.
 S(7): In the meantime, I have created the first interpretation behind a wrong decision.
-T: Stop, please, for a moment! Your last sentence had two of our previous synonyms : interpretation and decision. If the three words are really identical, then each word could be substituted by each other. The proof is in the pudding! (Please, do not forget to inspect the recommended book about the adverbs...) Well! The substituted variants, here you are:
+'''T: Stop, please, for a moment! Your last sentence had two of our previous synonyms : interpretation and decision. If the three words are really identical, then each word could be substituted by each other. The proof is in the pudding! (Please, do not forget to inspect the recommended book about the adverbs...) Well! The substituted variants, here you are:
 *I have created the first interpretation behind a wrong decision. (this was said instinctively)
 *I have created the first decision behind a wrong interpretation. (it seems to be very incorrect)

@@ 56. sor: / 56. sor: @@
 S(4): Why did you use parallel words before like choice-interpretation-decision?
-'''T: You have a good instinct to ask! A good question ensures the half way to the expected results. With other words: the right question is  half the battle! :-)''' BTW: I have a book for you - just here and now, but - I think - it will be interesting enough for everybody loving languages. The book has a simple title: Dictionary of PROVERBS (Penguin: https://www.bookdepository.com/Penguin-Dictionary-Proverbs-Rosalind-Fergusson/9780833505972) But we should go back to the question about the synonyms. Words can have a few relations to each other: like "is-a", "kind-of" (e.g. Audi is a car, red is a kind of color), has-a/part-of (e.g. the car has a brake - the brake is a part of the car), etc. (https://protege.stanford.edu/publications/ontology_development/ontology101-noy-mcguinness.html). Words can also have hierarchical connections: bugs vs. insects (https://terminixno.com/if-all-bugs-are-insects-are-all-insects-bugs/), where the well-known question is: If all bugs are insects, are all insects bugs? The answer is: Nope. All bugs are insects, but not all insects are bugs. An association is a specific connection between words: Dan Brown --> Da Vinci Code --> Mona Lisa, etc. After all these puzzle pieces: it is always relevant to declare, what kind of expression should be seen as the same or what kind of expressions are just stylistic substitutes in a given context.
+'''T: You have a good instinct to ask! A good question ensures the half way to the expected results. With other words: the right question is  half the battle! :-)''' BTW: I have a book for you - just here and now, but - I think - it will be interesting enough for everybody loving languages. The book has a simple title: Dictionary of PROVERBS (Penguin: https://www.bookdepository.com/Penguin-Dictionary-Proverbs-Rosalind-Fergusson/9780833505972) But we should go back to the question about the synonyms. Words can have a few relations to each other: like "is-a", "kind-of" (e.g. Audi is a car, red is a kind of color), has-a/part-of (e.g. the car has a brake - the brake is a part of the car), etc. (https://protege.stanford.edu/publications/ontology_development/ontology101-noy-mcguinness.html). Words can also have hierarchical connections: bugs vs. insects (https://terminixno.com/if-all-bugs-are-insects-are-all-insects-bugs/), where the well-known question is: If all bugs are insects, are all insects bugs? The answer is: Nope. All bugs are insects, but not all insects are bugs. An association is a specific connection between words: Dan Brown --> Da Vinci Code --> Mona Lisa, etc. After all these puzzle pieces: it is always relevant to declare, what kind of expression should be seen as the same ones or what kind of expressions are just stylistic substitutes of each other in a given context. Here and now: choice/decision/interpretation should be handled as the same ones.
   Everybody may offer new description layers and/or fine tune the above mentioned initial interpretations!

@@ 30. sor: / 30. sor: @@
 '''T:Thank you for your coming! In medias res: We should create two Doodle-votings. The first one will be made by the staff - here and now.
-The second one is your turn. The first question is: Who had a mathematical correct decision in the Monty-Hall-Test? The second (your) question will be: Which kind of interpretations can be identified behind a wrong choice?
+The second one is your turn. The first question is: Who had a mathematical correct decision in the Monty-Hall-Test? The second (your) question will be: Which kind of interpretations can be identified behind a wrong choice/decision/interpretation?
-In order to create a Doodle-voting-scenario, it is necessary to have a question. This is already available. It is necessary to have options. In this case: e.g. correct interpretation, incorrect interpretation.
+In order to create a Doodle-voting-scenario, it is necessary to have a question. This/these is/are already available. It is also necessary to have options in case of each question. In the first case, the options could be: e.g. correct interpretation/decision, incorrect interpretation/decision.
 '''
 S(7): Sorry, sorry - I think, these two options are not precise enough because the person who did not decide about the Monty-Hall-Question, well, s/he can not find an appropriate choice in the planned Doodle-system.
-'''T: Excellent! I can just highlight that a question should always have so many options that each potential situation should have an appropriate one. And if we are here - there is two further expectations according to the options: All options should be a kind of entire original option. It means: no overlapping with other ones. And the last expectation is: the set of the options should cover the whole potential of the options. In our case - here and now: the correctness of an declared option can just have two status: yes or no, but the non-declared cases will still not be covered, therefore it is necessary to have a third option like "no-interpretation".
+'''T: Excellent! I can just highlight that a question should always have so many options that each potential situation should have an appropriate one. And if we are here - there is two further expectations according to the options: In fact, all options should be a kind of entire original option. It means: no overlapping in the meanings with other ones. And the last expectation is: the set of the options should cover the whole potential of the options. In our case - here and now: the correctness of a declared option can just have two status: yes or no, but the non-declared cases will still not be covered, therefore it is necessary to have a third option like "no-interpretation/decision".
 '''
 S(7): All right, Sir!
-'''T: Before we try to use the Doodle-System, the options for your question should also be completed. Who could formulate the first option? The question was: " Which kind of interpretations can be identified behind a wrong choice? "
+'''T: Before we try to use the Doodle-System, the options for your question, for the second question should also be completed. Who could formulate the first option? Remember, please: the second question was: " Which kind of interpretations can be identified behind a wrong choice/decision/interpretation? "
 '''
-S(4): I think, in  this case, there is a lot of problems, is not there?
+S(4): I think, in this case, there is a lot of problems, is not there?
-S(7): Yes, I agree with this suspicion. Interpretations compared to each other either will not be original enough or there will be overlapping effects between interpretations.
+S(7): Yes, I agree with this suspicion. Interpretations compared to each other either will not be original enough or there will have overlapping effects between interpretations.
 '''T: You are right. Principles are mostly available just to approximate them!
 '''
   Everybody may offer new description layers and/or fine tune the above mentioned initial interpretations!

@@ 26. sor: / 26. sor: @@
 '''T: Hi!
 '''
 S(1, ..., n): Hello!
   Everybody may offer new description layers and/or fine tune the above mentioned initial interpretations!