Tim Starling wrote:
Timwi wrote:
David Friedland wrote:
I have written up a short, math-y description of an algorithmic method for determining whether or not a given revision constitutes reversion.
It won't work. No matter how clever and complicated your algorithm gets, people can just study it and then make edits that *just* fall outside the definition of a reversion.
I analysed David's algorithm, and wrote a summary of it that hopefully non-mathematicians will be able to understand. I also described the method required to make a reversion barely exceed the definition. You just have to add padding 1/9 of the size of the change you're making. An HTML comment would be quite sufficient. It's all on the meta page.
Thanks for that, now I don't need to study it :-) But my point is more general: I don't think it is possible to come up with *any* algorithm that does not have this problem.
Timwi