|
|
|
|
|
by lofi_lory
1884 days ago
|
|
I don't think your comment your comment is a fitting response as I clearly stated this is about the general, theoretical stance, where you can't make assumptions about either the alphabet, nor the text. As I recognized, introducing assumptions of course opens possibilities for doing things differently. I was using the DNA example, because bioinformatics is where a lot of people learn about BMA, because the math is easy there and we are not tempted to make assumptions about the text, even tho it's not random. For most bioinfo applications the alphabet is not four letters, but e.g. the amino acid alphabet, or having additional sequence information included. In bioinfo practice the naive algorithm often performs competitive against BMA if you optimize for hardware assumptions. Branch prediction is a bitch for BMA. |
|