On Sun, May 03, 2015 at 10:04:55AM +0200, Peter Bienstman wrote: > > > But rule 6 says not to apply rule 5 for failed cards: > > > > > > "If the quality response was lower than 3 then start repetitions for the > > > item > > from the beginning without changing the E-Factor" > > > > It doesn't say that. It says that rule 6 applies only to cards with grades > > 0 and 1. It doesn't and shouldn't say anything about the applicability of > > rule 5 in rule 6! > > As I see it, it does, because rule 6 says not to change the easiness for > failed cards, and changing the easiness is what rule 5 is all about. Ergo, > rule 6 says to ignore rule 5 in this case. > > But I think we can at least agree that this description is worded awkwardly > and confusingly, especially if it contradicts code snippets!
I agree that the wording of the SM2 algorithm is a bit confusing. A description for an algorithm like this is not just a set of rules, it's a set of steps to take, including the order to take them in. What it says on careful reading is that you should not change the easiness while executing step/rule 6. That's not the same as retroactively taking back step 5. So the admittedly somewhat obfuscated formulation and the example code from the website in your link are in fact consistent. But, the current mnemosyne scheduler is not consistent with the intended algorithm or the misinterpretation, because it also does something weird when the new grade of a reviewed card is 2. > > But if that is ok, because the precise algorithm is not important for what > > you > > want to do with this data, then there is no reason not to fix the scheduler > > now. > > I agree. Excellent! I look forward to the update. Best regards, Astrid -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
