RW wrote: > On Fri, 02 Oct 2009 00:14:52 +0200 > mouss <mo...@ml.netoyen.net> wrote: > >> RW wrote: > >>> The term false-positive can apply to any test. A test for ham >>> that matches a spam is a false-positive, it's a matter of context. >> spam too can be (re)defined. and actually any term. but it is assumed >> here that we talk about spam detection. so false negative means "miss" >> and false positive means "false alarm". this is the common terminology >> inherited from intrusion detection. > > The term comes from statistics, not intrusion detection. I don't > know much about the latter, perhaps people in that field are a little > sloppy in their usage, more likely all the tests are expressed as > tests for intrusion, so the same kind of issue doesn't arise. > > The source of your confusion is that you are mixing-up the terminology > of the overall classification and individual test results. Think of > this way, in a fingerprint comparison the meanings of TP, TN, FP and FN > are obvious and intrinsic to the test, it would be absurd to switch > them around depending on whether it's evidence for the defence or > prosecution.
let's take it more easily: Please explain to me what was an FP in this thread.
