Talk:Probabilistic context-free grammar

Why is the word RNA on every line?

These grammars have applications way way beyond RNA analysis, yet this document makes it seem like RNA is the only use worth mentioning. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.170.30.126 (talk) 21:55, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

I wouldn't even call this a linguistics article, as every section is qualified by 'in RNA analysis, ...'. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.170.30.126 (talk) 21:56, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

I agree: I came here to learn about probabilistic context-free grammars, but the text oscillates between the general explanations and the very specific application to genetics (which is hard to follow since necessary information is lacking). 141.5.38.59 (talk) 17:57, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

Why stochastic rather than probabilistic?

I have never heard of "SCFG", and I hear constantly about "PCFG". I strongly believe the latter to be the canonical name. --95.36.55.89 (talk) 11:36, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

agreed — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.85.114.9 (talk) 10:43, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

If this is the case (I notice this edit swapped SCFG for PCFG), then the article should be renamed? --Amkilpatrick (talk) 19:29, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

yes, please do so :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 145.109.0.128 (talk) 17:39, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Searching for PCFG or probabilistic context-free grammar redirects to this page. But it is about the use of such grammars for parsing RNA sequences, and is extremely specialized to that topic. Someone needs to write an article about PCFGs that deals with issues that come up in natural-language parsing. Drew McDermott 22:19, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

I agree that the name should be changed to "Probabilistic Context-Free Grammars (PCFG)". This has been proposed in 2014 and not yet done in 2017, why so? Yannis Haralambous 21:08, 14 June 2017.

It hasn't been done because no-one has been bold enough to list the technical move request at Wikipedia:Requested_moves/Technical_requests#Uncontroversial_technical_requests. I've now done so. Klbrain (talk) 03:26, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

Now done, I note. Klbrain (talk) 00:36, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

refs

How do I add a reference?

Paste in from Syntax

In the general article on Syntax there was a fairly large and technical comparison of SCFG with traditional PSGs. It didn't really belong in the general article. I moved it here with a pointer AndrewCarnie (talk) 23:14, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Philosophy?

Why is this article under Philosophy? Surely linguistics would be a better category. (But I suppose all subjects reduce to philosophy in the eyes of philosophers.)

--84.9.77.220 (talk) 23:29, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

The goal was to put items under category:Formal languages into the logic wp. However, some articles that are more closely related to mathematical logic don't fit. This one doesn't seem to fit either philosophical logic, or math logic. Pontiff Greg Bard (talk) 23:37, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't belong under formal languages, which are languages guided purely by form, since for a PCFG probabilities also count. It belongs under NLP / computational linguistics. --95.36.55.89 (talk) 11:36, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Error in references

Reference seven is precisely the same as reference one. But this text does not seem editable or at least I don't know how to do it. wgoetsch (talk) 17:22, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

I think this sentence is amazing really!

PCFGs extend context-free grammars similar to how hidden Markov models extend regular grammars.

Thanks to whoever wrote this. 91.140.28.69 (talk) 16:28, 30 July 2024 (UTC)