To be clear: without the mina error included, I get the same result as you: 102 matches.Dave Keenan wrote: ↑Wed Nov 04, 2020 10:19 am123 total - 18 non-matches = 105 matches. I only got 102 matches, so what's going on here?... when I just literally transcribe your formula it works (which is how I've been doing it in the occam semitinas script too). And you'll be happy to know that adding that mina error actually improves the situation from a metric score of 21 down to only 18
You asked me to see what I get when I when I add the mina error. When I add mina error, I get 105 matches.
I didn't realize that you'd already implemented mina error on your end. It sounds like you have implemented mina error on your end, and with it included, you get 102 matches. So you're surprised why I got 105.
I was excited to show that mina error actually improved the match count, suggesting that we had managed to find something that you and George had probably taken into consideration when choosing commas for the Extreme notation. But it sounds like I should have been not excited, but rather disappointed, that I didn't exactly get the same 102 match count that you did.
Please correct me if any of this is wrong.
And let me know if you want me to re-run my check with mina error included, and this time log out more information like which commas are and aren't matching, and how far off their scores are, etc.
Fair enough. Let's not spend too long devising an objective tiebreaker then.As nice as that would be, I know it's not what George would want, although he'd thank you for the sentiment. And I don't think there's any evidence that George knew about 7/425n, and so he might have had a different opinion if he had known about it.
I did not ignore your instructions. I ran my scripts that produced the recently shared results following those instructions. It is merely the case that as an afterthought I wondered aloud whether maybe we should have done it this way.Are you saying you ignored my definition of "list-B" here: viewtopic.php?f=10&t=430&p=2619&hilit=list+B#p2619
which involves "the existing commas", and instead substituted the lowest-badness comma in the same semitina zone as each existing Ultra comma?
I don't see any justification for doing that?
I have had similar thoughts. But these involve, in some sense, using the Ultra commas we should have had. But that would mean substituting the lowest-badness comma in the same mina zone as each existing Ultra comma, not the same semitina zone.
Based on your response, you definitely understand what I was getting at; in fact, you've understood it well enough to suggest that if we did do this, it would be the best (I treat "best" as synonymous with "lowest-badness" / "least bad") comma per mina zone, a suggestion that I agree is correct where I wasn't quite right yet.
And you've had similar thoughts. But you still don't see the justification. That's fine. I didn't mention it because I had any good reason to believe it was a more correct approach. I just wasn't sure whether the possibility had even occurred to you yet, or if it had, you'd dismissed it for some reason and I'd be interested in that reason.