On Tue, Mar 3, 2009 at 17:40, Marc Perkel <m...@perkel.com> wrote: > > > John Wilcock wrote: >> >> I wonder about the feasibility of a second Bayesian database, using the >> same learning mechanism as the current system, but keeping track of rule >> combinations instead of keywords. >> >> > > YES! That is something I think is worth trying.
this is worth investigating, I know someone was considering trying it in the past. A key aspect apparently is to make a token representing the *lack* of a rule hit -- ie. the rule was run, but did not fire. --j.
