← Back to context Comment by jaynetics 14 hours ago It's not really contradictory, minor changes can have major effects. 4 comments jaynetics Reply mdp2021 14 hours ago So they meant a "small" update - "conservative", "inexpensive"...An example when using a less frequent term actually reduces specificity. NekkoDroid 5 hours ago Changing TREE(2) to TREE(3) is a small change on the input, but a... lets just call it big... change in the output. halJordan 6 hours ago No, they used minor correctly. mdp2021 19 minutes ago Will you also explain, or leave it like that?
mdp2021 14 hours ago So they meant a "small" update - "conservative", "inexpensive"...An example when using a less frequent term actually reduces specificity. NekkoDroid 5 hours ago Changing TREE(2) to TREE(3) is a small change on the input, but a... lets just call it big... change in the output. halJordan 6 hours ago No, they used minor correctly. mdp2021 19 minutes ago Will you also explain, or leave it like that?
NekkoDroid 5 hours ago Changing TREE(2) to TREE(3) is a small change on the input, but a... lets just call it big... change in the output.
halJordan 6 hours ago No, they used minor correctly. mdp2021 19 minutes ago Will you also explain, or leave it like that?
So they meant a "small" update - "conservative", "inexpensive"...
An example when using a less frequent term actually reduces specificity.
Changing TREE(2) to TREE(3) is a small change on the input, but a... lets just call it big... change in the output.
No, they used minor correctly.
Will you also explain, or leave it like that?