Peter M Lerman
(trying to sound like I know what I'm talking about)
Date sent: Wed, 12 Aug 1998 12:39:36 -0400
To: voice-users@@voicerecognition.com
From: Jim Green <jgreen@@robotvision.com>
Subject: Re: [VRUG] Accuracy vs. system speed?
> This may be a little off topic for this list, but may also address Rose's
> question about minimum system requirements for Nat 3.01. It has been
> suggested that Nat 3.01's accuracy may be better on "faster" machines.
> One advantage to dealing with computers is that they are dererministic
> devices, that is, if you add 2+2, you always get 4. (Humans are
> notoriously non-deterministic.) A faster CPU will get 4 faster, but the
> answer is always 4.
>
> The above suggestion amounts to saying that Nat 3.01 is **not**
> deterministic when run on a slow enough computer, that is, on a slower
> computer, 2+2 = 3.5!! If this is the case, then the threshold when Nat's
> output becomes non-deterministic is surely a "lower limit on system
> performance" to use with Nat.
>
> Regards, Jim Green
>
> --------------------------------------------------
> At 09:42 AM 8/12/98 -0500, Holland St.John wrote:
> >My comment about the reason for the "better accuracy with faster
> >processors" is my rehash of what I was told by one of the Dragon people
> >last year. I have not tried to determine accuracy differences with
> >different speed processors myself. My impression is that there are not
> >noticeable differences for me in accuracy in using Nat 1, 2, 3 on
> >"slower" and "faster" computers, but I have not tried the same program on
> >a Dragon spec minimum machine then compared it on a PentII-400 w 256 meg
> >ram.
> >
> >Holland
>
> #~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~#
> James E. Green, Ph.D. # Jim@@RobotVision.com # 703-757-5140
> Robot Vision Corporation
> Computer Vision System Design & Implementation
> 9978 Blackberry Lane # 6 Mountain Laurel Ranch
> Great Falls, VA 22066 # P. O. Box 569, Leakey, TX 78873
> http://www.next-wave.com/jim.htm
![]() |