Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.lang.c > #111748
| Followup-To | comp.lang.c |
|---|---|
| From | Gareth Owen <gwowen@gmail.com> |
| Newsgroups | comp.lang.c, comp.lang.clipper |
| Subject | Re: Hamming distance: "covfefe" vs "coffee" vs "coverage" |
| References | (10 earlier) <oh2klr$e8s$5@dont-email.me> <oh5c35$edr$1@pcls7.std.com> <59ucjc9fk7fosbrf8mkc2r8rj1j5ucfeqb@4ax.com> <oh93ji$o18$4@dont-email.me> <oh97m8$7ps$2@gioia.aioe.org> |
| Date | 2017-06-07 20:42 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <871sqv60uv.fsf@gmail.com> (permalink) |
Cross-posted to 2 groups.
Followups directed to: comp.lang.c
acc <email@farlocca.it> writes: > Il 07/06/2017 16.49, Mr. Man-wai Chang ha scritto: > >> "covfefe" vs "coffee" vs "coverage" >> >> It's still a better explanation than "coverage". I think it's called >> Hamming Distance. >> >> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hamming_distance > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Levenshtein_distance In Levenshtein distance COFFEE is much the closer word. The reason people think its COVERAGE is from the context.
Back to comp.lang.c | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread
Hamming distance: "covfefe" vs "coffee" vs "coverage" "Mr. Man-wai Chang" <toylet.toylet@gmail.com> - 2017-06-07 22:49 +0800
Re: Hamming distance: "covfefe" vs "coffee" vs "coverage" acc <email@farlocca.it> - 2017-06-07 17:55 +0200
Re: Hamming distance: "covfefe" vs "coffee" vs "coverage" Gareth Owen <gwowen@gmail.com> - 2017-06-07 20:42 +0100
Re: Hamming distance: "covfefe" vs "coffee" vs "coverage" "Mr. Man-wai Chang" <toylet.toylet@gmail.com> - 2017-06-09 22:05 +0800
csiph-web