Talk:Probabilistic context-free grammar

Template:WikiProject Computational Biology

Linguistics: Applied Linguistics C‑class

	Linguistics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Linguistics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of linguistics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LinguisticsWikipedia:WikiProject LinguisticsTemplate:WikiProject LinguisticsLinguistics
C	This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by Applied Linguistics Task Force.
	This article has been automatically rated by a bot or other tool because one or more other projects use this class. Please ensure the assessment is correct before removing the `\|auto=` parameter.

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]