having a moment to ponder the thread it occurred to me the code you say is bad actually uses the factor multiplied by factor to get a product value. if you do not see how let me explain.

on one side of the word is a letter, this is a factor equivalent.

same for the other side of the word.

same for the letter in the middle of the word.

the two factors make a product of the letters being a match the product value is how many matching letters are in a word.

thats the code factor, the product is the result is seeing the words with their product values beside them. which when takes with the code points at how this product value shows how sarcastic someone is with their words which is the idea or the idea product.

i think all you see is a small part of the algorithm and claim to know everything in the algorithm which is shortsighted.

the whole program is a logic that follows the scientific method. if either of the factors have no value to you then thats all there is to it.

Zenbane

Honored Contributor

hoppingbunny123 wrote:
having a moment to ponder the thread it occurred to me the code you say is bad actually uses the factor multiplied by factor to get a product value.

I never said the code was "bad," I am merely explaining that the code in no way detects sarcasm.

The "value" that your code produces is simply a value within the range of "0 -> Greater than Zero" in cases where matching letters are found.

Matching letters has nothing to do with detecting sarcasm.

i think all you see is a small part of the algorithm and claim to know everything in the algorithm which is shortsighted.

I don't claim to know everything, I merely claim to have read all 98 lines of your code, and can conclude from a scientifically factual foundation that there's nothing about the 98 lines that detect sarcasm.

This is the output line of your so-called "algorithm"

print("\"" + list_of_words[y] + "\"" + " has this many matching sarcastic letter " + string_count)

First of all, there's no such thing as a "sarcastic letter." There are sarcastic statements, but not sarcastic letters.

Second, your output line would be more accurate this way:

print("\"" + list_of_words[y] + "\"" + " has this many matching letters " + string_count)

Just remove the word "sarcasm" from everything and your code is fine; since all it does is get a count of matching letters, and nothing more.

H

hoppingbunny123Author

Inspiring

for the reason i stated i find your opinion to be false. i wont say foolish though but the thought had occurred to me.

Zenbane

Honored Contributor

hoppingbunny123 wrote:
for the reason i stated i find your opinion to be false. i wont say foolish though but the thought had occurred to me.

It is false to believe that "sarcastic letters" exist.

It is false to conclude that finding matching letters between words somehow equates to finding "sarcastic letters."

It is also false to conclude that matching letters between words equates to detecting sarcasm.

As you said, I won't say it is also foolish but the thought can certainly occur.

You may want to review the meaning of Sarcasm:

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/sarcasm

Zenbane

Honored Contributor

Also, the code is completely broken, as it does not properly get the first and second half of words.

For example, run "tic tac" through your code, and it outputs this:
these are the overlapping sarcastic letters: {'a', 'i'}

Your code incorrectly concludes that "a" and "i" overlap between the words "tic" and "tac" which is clearly wrong as Tic doesn't have an "a" in it, and Tac doesn't have an "i" in it.

Final Verdict:

The code does not detect sarcasm
The code does not properly identify matching letters between the first and second half of words.

Here's how you fix your bug 😉

first_half = word[:len(word) // 2 + 1]
#second_half = word[len(word)  // 2:] this is derp, don't do it
second_half = word[len(first_half):]

Also, you should wrap it around a check to make sure the Length of the word is greater than 1, to make sure that basic works like "a" and "I" don't break it so easily.

H

hoppingbunny123Author

Inspiring

the code does what i said it does not what you say it does so of course it doesn't work as you see it should work.

in everything you said in this thread your wrong. not the wiki links of definitions of words that cant be wrong but in your logic and problem solving and assumptions and jumping to conclusions its very simple and not very good at all. elementary grade school might be better than your assumptions maybe kindergarten is the level of assumptions you make here.

Zenbane

Honored Contributor

hoppingbunny123 wrote:
the code does what i said it does not what you say it does so of course it doesn't work as you see it should work.

The code doesn't do what you said, nor does it do the basic letter matching properly.

I am not applying my own personal idea of what the code should do, I am applying what you claim it should do as well as what the code itself tries to do.

The code fails to do both what you claim and what the code itself tries to accomplish.

H

hoppingbunny123Author

Inspiring

the code is misunderstood by you for the reason i gave previously. your assuming you know what the code is and its what you say it is and that the code is written wrong from how you say it should be written.

the code works. the logic works.

Zenbane

Honored Contributor

hoppingbunny123 wrote:
the code is misunderstood by you for the reason i gave previously.

Nope. The code is misunderstood by you, as made obvious by the fact that the code (which is broken) attempts to match pairs of letters between words and then makes the error of labeling that as "sarcastic letters."

The only person making assumptions is you, as you falsely assume that when letters match between words that sarcasm has been detected.

Both your code and assumptions fail in this regard.

H

hoppingbunny123Author

Inspiring

all i have seen from you is a blind belief.

Zenbane

Honored Contributor

hoppingbunny123 wrote:
all i have seen from you is a blind belief.

Blind Belief = Believing that Matching Letters equates to Detecting Sarcasm

🙂

Like I said, your code is broken even outside the fact that it fails to detect sarcasm.

Input "tic tac" in to your code, and it generates the error of stating that the words "tic" and "tac" have the overlapping letters of "i" and "a." If you can't see how that's an error, then this conversation needs to start with the basic review of the Alphabet.

I <> A

H

hoppingbunny123Author

Inspiring

i updated my sarcasm program: https://github.com/dothehokiepokie/mystuffyouknow/tree/main/sarcasm

here are some program results, note the larger the number by the word the more sarcastic it is:

original text = That's just what I needed today!

program results:

"

[Running] python -u "c:\Users\office\Desktop\sarcasm\sarcasm.py"

these are the overlapping sarcastic letters: {'e', 't', 'd', 'a', 'i'}

thats 2

what 2

today 3

needed 2

just 1

i 1

[Done] exited with code=0 in 0.064 seconds

"

original text = Well, what a surprise.

program results:

"

[Running] python -u "c:\Users\office\Desktop\sarcasm\sarcasm.py"

these are the overlapping sarcastic letters: {'a', 's', 'r', 'e'}

what 1

a 1

well 1

surprise 3

[Done] exited with code=0 in 0.058 seconds

"

original text = Is it time for your medication or mine?

program results:

"

[Running] python -u "c:\Users\office\Desktop\sarcasm\sarcasm.py"

these are the overlapping sarcastic letters: {'o', 'i', 'm', 't', 'e'}

medication 5

mine 3

is 1

time 4

for 1

it 2

or 1

your 1

[Done] exited with code=0 in 0.06 seconds

"

A

Anonymous

I watched a couple youtube recordings, one where an individual said "pessimistic reactions rise quicker", and one more said that videogames like obligation at hand have a calculation that causes individuals to lose or win.

the way this capacities on my past posts rationale is the manner in which the two individuals converse with one another, one individual presents the subject with the huge and little words, the following individual presents how the subject manages no genuine contrast in the size of the words and they are on the whole little words in contrast with the subject huge word.

to order the heading of the discussion is enabling. so the individual who specifies the subject arrangement of words controls the discussion.

how this means the rationale I referenced is the negative reaction isn't instructing the course of the discussion or the manner in which the game is dominated or lost.

I accept subsequent to watching computer games a calculation like the one I referenced in my past post as of now exists and is utilized to control computer games and furthermore web-based entertainment. its likewise conversational man-made intelligence all things considered far past microsoft tay.
For More Visit: Python course in Pune

Get Help

Sign up

Login with SSO

Login to the community

Login with SSO