|
 Hello everyone, i'm recently working on a multi-language tagging system named Lispeln. Which used NGram with backoff and smooth to identify languages. Now the project almost finished, and support 476 languages.
Anyone who interested it could visit:
http://lispeln.googlepages.com[^]
for details.
Since I'm focusing on algorithm, I use C#3.0 to implement that, although ASP.NET application may seemed a more practical solution for that. 
Suggestions and dicussions about that is welcomed.
Thx
We can only see a short distance ahead, but we can see there that needs to be done.
|
|
|
|
|
Ok you've made me curious. Did you do this by yourself? That's alot of work if you did, I couldn't even list the names of 476 languages let alone know them well enough to test a program like that.
Han Xiao wrote: Which used NGram with backoff and smooth to identify languages.
What does that mean in plain english? If you got the time maybe you should write an article about it, it sound pretty impressive if it works.
Mike
|
|
|
|
|
Thanks for your attention, Mike. Yes, just by myself. But with a lot of help of Unicode.org. While I used some unicode encoding pattern for an initial identifier. Fortunately, Unicode.org provides all this rules and information about encoding.
Just you've mentioned, ngram is a statistical language model that based on probability.
Sure, I don't have a proper test text for that. And on my site, http://lispeln.googlepages.com
I built 4 typical pragraph for a quick-test, you can visit and see that.
I'm now still working on optimizing the algorithm.
We can only see a short distance ahead, but we can see there that needs to be done.
|
|
|
|
|
Hi friends ..i need ur help..
how to convert polygon to triangle ..i have only polygon co-ordinates ..how to make a triangles in between these polygons !!!
plz give give ur suggestion
Thanks in advance
raju.k
|
|
|
|
|
raju.k wrote: how to convert polygon to triangle
Well, you have to drop some sides (don't forget to link the reamining ones).
BTW if you choose a point inside the (supposed to be) convex polygon area and link it with all polygon vertices, don't you obtain triangles, do you?
If the Lord God Almighty had consulted me before embarking upon the Creation, I would have recommended something simpler.
-- Alfonso the Wise, 13th Century King of Castile.
[my articles]
|
|
|
|
|
Which is why the good lord invented the polygon fan vertex buffer 
|
|
|
|
|
If you want to fill a given polygon with triangles then you are looking for triangulation. It's pretty straightfoward in 2D
Look here Link[^]
Cheers..
Communism doesn't work because people like to own stuff.
Frank Zappa
|
|
|
|
|
Hi there, hey there, ho there!
Do anyone knows a .NET, public domain or open source implementation of 3D triangulation algorithm (Delaunay or other - gift wrapping, quick hull).
I just need to do simple triangulation - input of 3D points, output triangles, but what I've found so far are complex libraries for computational geometry written mostly in C, or C++ (Unix oriented).
TIA!
Communism doesn't work because people like to own stuff.
Frank Zappa
|
|
|
|
|
Out of curiosity, have you found anything on this?
"The clue train passed his station without stopping." - John Simmons / outlaw programmer
"Real programmers just throw a bunch of 1s and 0s at the computer to see what sticks" - Pete O'Hanlon
|
|
|
|
|
Well.. I haven't found anything in C#, so I used Joseph O'Rourke's algorithm from "Computational Geometry in C".
I was thinking about writing an article about this, but time wasn't by my side
A man's got to know his limitations
Harry Callahan
|
|
|
|
|
s.t.a.v.o wrote: was thinking about writing an article about this, but time wasn't by my side
That's too bad. That would be a really good article. Maybe you can eventually find some time soon
"The clue train passed his station without stopping." - John Simmons / outlaw programmer
"Real programmers just throw a bunch of 1s and 0s at the computer to see what sticks" - Pete O'Hanlon
|
|
|
|
|
hey if you have found solution......????please help .....i have same problem.....
|
|
|
|
|
A rectangle is a parallelogram.
A rhombus is a parallelogram.
A square is a rectangle.
A square is a rhombus.
In which geometries are all these still true, and why?
Euclidean (obviously)
non-Euclidean
Riemannian
etc.
I'm thinking that some shapes may not exist in some geometries. Do any exist that still negate the statements made?
P.S. - Geometry was my least favorite math.
There are II kinds of people in the world, those who understand binary and those who understand Roman numerals. Web - Blog - RSS - Math
|
|
|
|
|
If the Lord God Almighty had consulted me before embarking upon the Creation, I would have recommended something simpler.
-- Alfonso the Wise, 13th Century King of Castile.
[my articles]
|
|
|
|
|
No, Math++.
There are II kinds of people in the world, those who understand binary and those who understand Roman numerals. Web - Blog - RSS - Math
|
|
|
|
|
I try to guess that multiple inheritance applies also to non-Euclidean geometries if you generically define the rectangle having all angles equal and rhombus having all sides equal and, finally the square having both properties (i.e. you don't insist on 90 degrees angles).
Probably I'm wrong since I'm really know nothing about non-Euclidean geaometry  .
If the Lord God Almighty had consulted me before embarking upon the Creation, I would have recommended something simpler.
-- Alfonso the Wise, 13th Century King of Castile.
[my articles]
|
|
|
|
|
I don't think you can re-define the rectangle and the rhombus, it would be cheating...
The only difference between the Euclidian and non-Euclidian geometries is the 5th postulate, but the other ones stand. So you must have a definition of "right angle" in every geometry, which means you can define the rectangle in every geometry.
Admittedly, the definition may become very obscure and complicated... and you probably would not be able to measure the right angle in degrees or radiants...
So I think the multiple inheritance holds in every geometry.
The square is defined to be something that is both a rectangle and a rhombus, and because you can define the rectangle and rhombus in every geometry, you can define the square in every geometry.
[edit] I realised this may not be very clear... my point is that when you change geometry, the only thing you re-define is the basic concepts like line, lenght, and right angle, but the rectangle, rhombus and square have the same definitions, just expressed in the new interpretation of line, lenght, and angle.
-+ HHexo +-
|
|
|
|
|
Nope, I'm not cheating, a rectangle may really be defined, in Euclidean geometry as a quadrilateral having all of the angles equal, the fact that then they are right angles is then a mere consequence  .
If the Lord God Almighty had consulted me before embarking upon the Creation, I would have recommended something simpler.
-- Alfonso the Wise, 13th Century King of Castile.
[my articles]
|
|
|
|
|
CPallini wrote: mere consequence
Visually it is mere, but trying to prove that may get you stuck on the 5th Postulate, which made me wonder if my original statements always hold true.
There are II kinds of people in the world, those who understand binary and those who understand Roman numerals. Web - Blog - RSS - Math
|
|
|
|
|
IMHO the point is not if you need or don't need the fifth postulate.
If you define a rectangle as the quadrialteral having all its angles equal then yes, you may need the fifth postualte to demonstrate that the angle are in fact right ones, but it doesn't matter: in the context of Euclidean Geometry the fifth postulate is fine (correct me if I'm wrong, since I'm not an expert about), but with the above definition (the all agles equals one), the proposed inheritance tree is valid also in not-Euclidean geometries (Maybe I'm wrong again).
If the Lord God Almighty had consulted me before embarking upon the Creation, I would have recommended something simpler.
-- Alfonso the Wise, 13th Century King of Castile.
[my articles]
|
|
|
|
|
But a rhombus is a diamond... leading to diamond-shaped Multiple Inheritance which is naughty. 
|
|
|
|
|
I am trying to find an algorithm, or actual code if available, to find the intersection point of a Great Circle line and a straight line. Even though this is on a sphere, the earth, I want to consider the straight line as basically tunneling through the earth and not following the curvature of the earth. Basically I want to find the point where a Great Circle line passes some "line in the sand". I have searched for an algorithm for this but have not been able to find anything. Please help me Obi Wan Kenobe, you're my only hope.
Kalvin
|
|
|
|
|
Hi,
there is no algorithm involved, just a little algebra, with a system of two equations (line and
sphere) to solve. What do you know about the line? What is your coordinate system?
If you can't solve it in three dimensions, try the similar question in two dimensions first.
Luc Pattyn [Forum Guidelines] [My Articles]
This month's tips:
- before you ask a question here, search CodeProject, then Google;
- the quality and detail of your question reflects on the effectiveness of the help you are likely to get;
- use PRE tags to preserve formatting when showing multi-line code snippets.
|
|
|
|
|
Thank you for the reply.
When it comes to math I am at a disadvantage. My lines are defined by lat/lon values for the end points of both lines. I know the equation for a straight line is y=mx+b. I can plug in lat/lon for y and x since lat/lon are in decimal degrees. I have not been able to find an equation for the Great Circle line, not one I understand anyway.
|
|
|
|
|
Why don't you follow Luc suggestion and try first in two dimensions?
If the Lord God Almighty had consulted me before embarking upon the Creation, I would have recommended something simpler.
-- Alfonso the Wise, 13th Century King of Castile.
[my articles]
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
