<HeavySarcasm>Wow. Is that what dot products are?</HeavySarcasm>
You're confusing all sorts of related concepts with a really garbled vocabulary.
Let's do this with some concrete 10-D geometry . . . . Vector A runs from (0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0) to (1, 10000, 0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0). Vector B runs from (0,0,0) to (1, 0, 10000,0,0,0,0,0,0,0).
Clearly A and B share the first dimension. Do you believe that they share the second and the third dimension? Do you believe that dropping out the fourth through tenth dimension in all calculations is some sort of huge conceptual breakthrough?
The two vectors are similar in the first dimension (indeed, in all but the second and third) but otherwise very distant from each other (i.e. they are *NOT* similar). Do you believe that these vectors are similar or distant?
THE ALLEGATION BELOW THAT I MISUNDERSTOOD THE MATH BECAUSE THOUGHT COLLIN'S PARSER DIDN'T HAVE TO DEAL WITH A VECTOR HAVING THE FULL DIMENSIONALITY OF THE SPACE BEING DEALT WITH IS CLEARLY FALSE.
My allegation was that you misunderstood the math because you claimed that Collin's paper "does not use an explicit vector representation" while Collin's statements and the math itself makes it quite clear that they are dealing with a vector representation scheme. I'm now guessing that you're claiming that you intended "explicit" to mean "full dimensionality". Whatever. Don't invent your own meanings for words and you'll be misunderstood less often (unless you continue to drop out key words like in the capitalized sentence above).
----- This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to: http://v2.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244&id_secret=72452073-36665f
