Talk:N-gram
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit] Merge Trigram and Bigram to N-Gram
They're just special cases. The bigram and trigram articles should be deleted, and their entries redirect to n-gram. 67.180.161.52 06:58, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
See the point, but I vote no. There is so much literature (references) where 'bigram' or 'trigram' is the distinguishing feature that these will always be important topics in their own right (and there is some indication that bigram may be the 'fundamental unit' of neuonal computation).
So .. people will likely want to go to bigram as a topic. And it does have a special 'place'. Just as binary is a special case of all bases, and so deserves special treatment. quota 21:33, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
I agree with quota, although a more uniform treatment of bigram, trigram and n-gram would be nice... Skaakt 13:21, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
I agree as well that small entries that explain the equivalence followed by a link to the general page would be very helpful. [[User::Tdunning]] 9:41 PST, November 13, 2006
I think they should be merged. If there was one good page that explained what goes into picking the N for an N-gram, than it would be redundant to have the other pages. Further, n-grams is a concept, whether bigram, tragram etc, where the value of n is not the most salient feature. - DustinSmith
Unfortunately that is not so. N- (or n-) grams are being used as 'trade marks' by some 'scientific' investigators. At best they are a useful abbreviation. But the meaning of 'bigram' and 'trigram' can be guessed at from the word itself, as a back-formation from 'monogram' [the mono, there, referring to the object, not the parts].
And of course the most salient feature of bigrams is that they have only two parts. That's whey they are interesting ... quota
Umm, no to the merge. — Tuvok[T@lk/Improve me] 03:18, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
I also vote no. Most discussions of n-grams explicity break out the terms bigram and trigram for special treatment. Anything of a higher order is simply labeled a n-gram.Dalebrearcliffe 18:06, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
