OT: Variations in English WAS: Non-English compilers(was: RM COBOL with ISAM files

OT: Variations in English WAS: Non-English compilers(was: RM COBOL with ISAM files

Post by Alistai » Sat, 17 Jul 2010 20:05:07


On Jul 16, 1:13m, "Pete Dashwood"




There is no reason why spell-checkers can not cater for variants in
one dictionary. Word allows you to add your variant spelling without
invalidating the original dictionary spelling. One problem: wouldn't
you end up allowing all mis-spellings too? I don't know how modern
spell-checkers work (I last checked it out in 2003) but they are
inherently limited (2003) by their algorithm. The 2003 method involved
weighting each character position and multiplying by a nominal value
for the character, summing all products and then using the sum as an
index to a 4096 table of bits where 1 = valid spelling and 0 =
invalid. It was perfectly possible to calculate a sum for one mis-
spelled word which would point to a bit which indicated (incorrectly)
that the word was valid (even though other calculations could produce
the same displacement).

The book I read didn't tell me how Word checks for grammatical errors.
 
 
 

OT: Variations in English WAS: Non-English compilers(was: RM COBOL with ISAM files

Post by Pete Dashw » Sat, 17 Jul 2010 23:08:05

listair wrote:

I believe that would only work for words up to 12 characters long. Anything
bigger would be indeterminate.

It sounds similar to a technique of inverted indexing I came across in one
of the very early database systems (system 2000).

I would be very surprised if MS Word used such a primitive and obviously
flawed algorithm, but you never know...


I doubt very much that it spell checks that way either. Ms word 2007 uses
context sensitive spell checking to determine the correct spelling based on
context as well as dictionary lookup. So, for example:

"He through the dog a bone." ...would be flagged even though all the words
are spelled correctly.

Pete.

--
"I used to write COBOL...now I can do anything."