[LCWO LOGO]  

Login

User name:
Password:


Language
Български Português brasileiro
Bosanski Català
繁體中文 Česky
Dansk Deutsch
English Español
Suomi Français
Ελληνικά Hrvatski
Magyar Italiano
日本語 Bahasa Melayu
Nederlands Norsk
Polski Português
Română Русский
සිංහල Slovenščina
Srpski Svenska
ภาษาไทย Türkçe
Українська 简体中文

Who is online? (7)


LCWO Discussion Forum [Atom LCWO Forum Feed]

This is a simple discussion forum for LCWO users. Feel free to use it for any kind of discussion related to this website.

Thread: code groups and randomness

Back to the Forum

AuthorText


Posted: 2011-03-02 12:03

Hi, I was thinking about the randomness of course code groups. As far as I can see the random function is not really shuffle-based (like how the lottery numbers are generated) but more like picking letters from a pool with the same statistical probability every time? With infinite length of lesson everything sure works fine.. but is there any point of improving it? For example, a full code group could be following:

"X6/Y5W 0QZ37 2SM1N L?4ET JHVO. DRB9U AGFC= P,8KI"

Not just blind random but also making sure that each letter does not show up more often than the others.
[deleted]

Posted: 2011-03-02 13:13
Yeah,

Right, your analysis is perfect.

But why is shuffle based a better choice?

In your example you don't have to transmit the last character "I" because it is the only remaining character of the complete set, so there is no information included, or it should be a kind of checksum.

Code transmissions in practice were completely random, so the same probability every time seems to me the best choice.


Posted: 2011-03-02 13:33
Yes, maybe I was thinking student could get a same amount of teaching per each character. But sure, like you said, it's good that student has no possibility to predict next coming character.


Posted: 2011-03-05 15:46
The weakness of the Koch progression is that you get fewer and fewer repeats of each character as you get further along the lessons, so K, M, U and R are burned in through hundreds of repetitions but X, 0, 6 and D have hardly been heard at all.
[deleted]

Posted: 2011-03-05 20:05
Right, sharp mind!

K,M,U,R are the ice breakers, the path makers in the process of learning.

However, do you have any idea why the progress in the course ( number of required exercises per lesson) is not proportional with the sequence number of the lessons?

Any idea why I myself copy an x or z as easy as an e?


Posted: 2011-03-06 16:45
Any idea? No. I have no idea real how long I might expect to work on lesson 1 before moving to lesson 2, nor how long I might expect to take on lesson 39 before moving to 40. My experience thus far would seem to indicate I need to double the number of attempts each time I move up one, but that may be an underestimate.
[deleted]

Posted: 2011-03-06 18:37
Rick

Expect 10 to 30 exercises per lesson, in the case you did not master Morse long time ago.

Do it every day for 15 minutes. Not any longer.





Posted: 2011-03-07 18:23
So if each exercise is 2 minutes long, that'd be six, maybe seven exercises a day, so I should expect to spend between two and five days on each lesson, and take between three and eight months to get to the end of lesson 40. Patience and perseverance will be needed, clearly. It's good to start with a realistic idea of how long the journey will be. Thanks.


Posted: 2011-03-07 19:19
I've been at it for 10 months now and I'm on lesson 33. I have had a couple of breaks, one of about 2 months. I try to do some each lunchtime and evening, just a couple of sequences each time.
[deleted]

Posted: 2011-03-08 02:48
Interesting analysis on the randomness of the characters and their weaighting as proportional to when in the 40 lesson sequence thry are learned.

I wonder why no one mentioned weighting the characters based on the rate occurance in normal English language? Or how about reverse weighting so the less often used characters, and therefore the most complex and most easily forgotten, are practiced more often.

I'm not looking a gift horse in the mouth, this is a great program!

Thanks again.


Posted: 2011-03-12 20:25
I moved from lesson 1 to lesson 2 when I'd managed 3 attempts in a row when it suggested I might try the next lesson. Now on lesson 2 I'm thinking I probably switched too soon.


Posted: 2011-03-13 01:27
Rick

Congradulations. Lesson 1 to lesson 2 in three attempts is something to be pleased with. You are on the right path.

A score of 90% or better on a test is to be commended. Do not waste time for a 100% score, thats your ego talking.

Proceed on with your learning and advancement.

Do not look back, you are on the right path.

CW Rocks
KJ4WGU


Posted: 2011-03-13 17:13
No, 13 attempts (and it's not the first time I've tried); the last three attempts suggested it was time to move on, but having moved on to the next lesson I found I'd not learned those first two characters anything like as well as I needed to have done, because I'm 26 attempts into lesson 2 and I've scratched that time to move on figure only twice, and both times it felt like luck, not skill...

I don't see myself getting to lesson 3 after 30 attempts at lesson 2.


Posted: 2011-03-22 18:11
...or even, it seems, after 60 attempts. I don't suppose I should move on until I can at least get better than 90% each time?

It's strange but rather predictable. I'll sit down to have another session. First attempt (nominally 2 minutes at 20/9) will probably have a result better than 90%. The second attempt might be better than 90% but is more likely to be lower, nearer 80% correct, and the third attempt will be worse.

Back to the Forum

You must be logged in to post a message.

$Id: forum.php 62 2015-01-12 17:34:44Z fabian $