[Short Updates] Results of a simplest possible extractive text summarizer

Today, I implemented a simplest possible extractive text summarizer, one which is based on word frequencies, as explained here [^], here [^], and also way back in 2014, here [^].

I ran it on my a few of my own blog posts. Here are the results. Amusement is all yours.


Original document: “A bit on Panpsychism—part 1: what its basis possibly could be” [^]

Extractive summary:

However, when I began wondering what could possibly be the theoretical bases of this idea (of panpsychism), these two seemed to be the right kind of bases.
[I don’t know if all advocates of panpsychism accept the above two ideas or not.
world that is permanently inaccessible to the rest of us, but one that is, somehow, definitely accessible to philosophers of mysticism such as Plato or Kant.
So, my discussion of panpsychism is going to be limited to what I understand about this theory after listening to only Prof. Chalmers.


Original document: “A bit on Panpsychism—part 2: Why the idea is basically problematic, and what could be a different (and hopefully better) alternative” [^].

Extractive summary:

We can rely on the physics principles so long as we are able to bring the physical actions produced by the consciousness of the cat into our system description.
In terms of our thought experiment, it takes the consciousness of the cat and smears it onto not just the wooden box, but also onto the wooden table.
The table acts exactly the same way whether there is only a box, or a box with a non-responsive cat, or a box with a much meowing cat.
Also, the elementary bits of “life”: can there be a of life too, and if yes, how does differ from ordinary loss of life (i.e.
Consciousness is an attribute of only those beings that actually have life.


Original document: My initial post (not including replies) at the iMechanica thread of discussion: “Stress or strain: which one is more fundamental?” [^]

Extractive summary:

You always need a geometric entity like area or line element (even if it is infinitesimally small) before quantities like stress or flux can at all be defined.
In short, since both are second order symmetric tensors, stress and strain tensors do seem completely similar.
Now, if you split the relative deformation tensor into its symmetric and anti-symmetric parts, and ignore the anti-symmetric part (representing rotations), what you get is the strain tensor.
In between stress and strain, which one is the more fundamental physical quantity?
stress, strain, electric field vector) is a fundamental one.


Original document: The entirety of the above thread

Extractive summary:

Definitions are arbitrary and the only rule one need to obey is the correctness of energy calculation for each pair of stress and strain definition.
In both cases, thinner or thicker, if no external force is applied, we would simply say that the stress in the dielectric is zero.
The ABAQUS theory manual has a section describing different definitions of strain and stress.
Stress and strain are duals in the sense of energy or work.
After all, thinner or thicker is just an observation of strain, and says nothing about stress.


Conclusion: Obviously, the algorithm does not work very well—not at least on the kind of documents that were considered here.


I put this post in the Short Updates category, because most of the content was produced by the program; I myself wrote only a few sentences.

 

 

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.