But won't the algorithm will only behave like A if you keep getting
the card right? Assuming the ideal sequence is as in B, then by
definition when mnemosyne asks you about the card after a period
longer than a year, you won't do well. So won't the actual interval
bounce around the ideal interval? For instance, suppose the ideal
interval is always 1 year. I thought Mnemosyne would behave like
this:
Mnemosyne Internal Grade User
(in years) Gives Card
.5 5
1 4
1.3 2
1.1 3
.9 4
1.1 3
1.0 4
1.2 3
... ...
The numbers are just illustrations, but I thought Mnemosyne would
shorten the interval if you gave the card less than a 4, and would
lengthen it if you gave the card a 4 or 5. So if the ideal interval
is always 1 yr, won't Mnemosyne will approximate that, at least to
some degree?
--
Ben
----------------- Original message -----------------
From: Peter Bienstman <[email protected]>
To: [email protected]
Date: Wed, 1 Jul 2009 08:48:07 +0200
On Wednesday 01 July 2009 03:33:23 am Ben wrote:
> Are you sure about this? Unscientifically, it seems more plausible to
> me that there is some minimum limit on how seldomly you can review
> something and still remember it. For instance, for a specific card,
> here are two sequences of optimal times between review:
>
> A: 1mo, 3mo, 6mo, 1yr, 2yr, 3yr, 5yr, 7yr, 10yr ...
> B: 1mo, 3mo, 6mo, 1yr, 1yr, 1yr, 1yr, 1yr, 1yr ...
Right now the algorithm does behave like A. Whether that is the best way on a
30y time span, nobody knows, but that's one of the things I hope to find out by
collecting stats. I'm in it for the long run :-)
Peter
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"mnemosyne-proj-users" group.
To post to this group, send email to [email protected]
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
[email protected]
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/mnemosyne-proj-users?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
