CFI wrote:
Manual reloading (1) could be preferred and/or be useful under certain scenarios. In fact, it comes closest to Leitner's original scheme (obviously, with a physical box, the user has to reload box 1 himself).
Manual reload can be viewed, in principle, as a special case of the other.
Let
C1 be the capacity of box1
n1 be the current number of cards in box 1
r1 be the level at which automatic reload of box1 occurs
Option (2):
To accomplish (1), set r1 to a negative number. Obviously, n1 can never be less than zero! Hence, with r1 negative, automatic reload will never occur (the user would have to explicitly ask for it).
Just some thoughts.
Virgil
Yes, exactly. ML continuous to ask pool-questions until box 1 is full and thats the point where ML is definitely not optimal.Great. In your discussions, please, consider the possibility of implementing (1) and (2) together (as a user choice). Perhaps the algorithm to implement (2) could with only minor modifications implement (1) ("killing two birds with the same stone"!).
And just to say it again: I think your solution 2) from above is better and I will discuss with my collegue...
Manual reloading (1) could be preferred and/or be useful under certain scenarios. In fact, it comes closest to Leitner's original scheme (obviously, with a physical box, the user has to reload box 1 himself).
Manual reload can be viewed, in principle, as a special case of the other.
Let
C1 be the capacity of box1
n1 be the current number of cards in box 1
r1 be the level at which automatic reload of box1 occurs
Option (2):
IF n1 <= r1 THEN reload_box1.
To accomplish (1), set r1 to a negative number. Obviously, n1 can never be less than zero! Hence, with r1 negative, automatic reload will never occur (the user would have to explicitly ask for it).
Just some thoughts.
Virgil
