Let suppose we say that there is a document D and a List of Sensitive Terms S. all NPs are belongs to D. Now IF are those NPs that belongs to S.
(1) IF = All NPs that belongs S.
Now Let suppose we have list A and B. Where A contains Identifiers and B contain medical finding. All those NPs that is in A are I and All those NPs that is in B are F.
(2) I = { i E D | i E {a E A }}
(3) F = {f E D | f E {b E B}}
So implies that
(4) IF = I = { i E D | i E {a E A }} | F = {f E D | f E {b E B}}
or
(5) IF = I + F
How to write these (1) to (5) equations correctly in set theory or Mathematical modeling ?
Thank you so much @Sangeen Khan, I wish some one confirm your contribution here that it is really the correct way to present in set theory.
I can try to answer, but I think some conceptual clarification needs to be made. For example, if D is a document and S is a set of sensitive terms and NP is a D, that implies that NP is a document. But a document is a different type of an object than a sensitive term, so it doesn't seem to make sense that NP (considered as a set now) and S could be intersecting. At first I then thought that you meant that NP was a term in a document, but later you suggest that an NP could be an Identifier or a Medical Finding also. So you must mean the NP is a set of what I will call tokens that can occur in a document. For example, a word like "patient" could occur in a document, while an identifier such as social security number could occur in a document, while a medical finding in a document could be a simple statement like "Tumor" or a phrase such as "A tumor was found." I can't see how else to make sense of this, so that's the understanding I'm proceeding under. The set IF could be correctly defined, as the set of tokens in a document that are sensitive terms, but then (4) and(5) cannot be correct. This is so because I think you then want I to be the set of all Identifiers in a document and F to be the set of Medical Findings in a document, and clearly then IF I union F (which is how I interpret "IF = I + F".
That's the best I can do at this point. If you have any clarifications etc., I can try to be of further assistance.
In order to give a model in terms of sets you have to make clear the objects (potential set elements) and the predicates you are talking about. All my attempts to dechiffere your secret language stop since I can find no clue to understand your NP. As a noninitiated of your secret science I'm satisfied to see that Ross La Haye seems to have the same problem.
D is textual document , where NPs are set of Noun Phrases in the document
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Mathematics
- Applied Mathematics