Andrei Milton Gonzales Iturri.

Higher University of San Andrés | UMSA

This is so far the procedure I was trying upon and then I couldn't fix it

As per my understanding here some definitions:

- lexical frequencies, that is, the frequencies with which correspondences occur in a dictionary or, as here, in a word list;

- lexical frequency is the frequency with which the correspondence occurs when you count all and only the correspondences in a dictionary.

- text frequencies, that is, the frequencies with which correspondences occur in a large corpus.

- text frequency is the frequency with which a correspondence occurs when you count all the correspondences in a large set of pieces of continuous prose ...;

You will see that lexical frequency produces much lower counts than text frequency because in lexical frequency each correspondence is counted only once per word in which it occurs, whereas text frequency counts each correspondence multiple times, depending on how often the words in which it appears to occur.

When referring to the frequency of occurrence, two different frequencies are used: type and token. Type frequency counts a word once.

So I understand that probably lexical frequencies deal with types counting the words once and text frequencies deal with tokens counting the words multiple times in a corpus, therefore for the last, we need to take into account the word frequency in which those phonemes and graphemes occur.

So far I managed phoneme frequencies as it follows

Phoneme frequencies:

Lexical frequency is: (single count of a phoneme per word/total number of counted phonemes in the word list)*100= Lexical Frequency % of a specific phoneme in the word list.

Text frequency is similar but then I fail when trying to add the frequencies of the words in the word list: (all counts of a phoneme per word/total number of counted phonemes in the word list)*100 vs (sum of the word frequencies of the targeted words that contain the phoneme/total sum of all the frequencies of all the words in the list)= Text Frequency % of a specific phoneme in the word list.

PLEASE HELP ME TO FIND A FORMULA ON HOW TO CALCULATE THE LEXICAL FREQUENCY AND THE TEXT FREQUENCY of phonemes and graphemes.

This is so far the procedure I was trying upon and then I couldn't fix it

As per my understanding:

- lexical frequencies, that is, the frequencies with which correspondences occur in a dictionary or, as here, in a word list;

- lexical frequency is the frequency with which the correspondence occurs when you count all and only the correspondences in a dictionary.

- text frequencies, that is, the frequencies with which correspondences occur in a large corpus.

- text frequency is the frequency with which a correspondence occurs when you count all the correspondences in a large set of pieces of continuous prose ...;

You will see that lexical frequency produces much lower counts than text frequency because in lexical frequency each correspondence is counted only once per word in which it occurs, whereas text frequency counts each correspondence multiple times, depending on how often the words in which it appears to occur.

When referring to the frequency of occurrence, two different frequencies are used: type and token. Type frequency counts a word once.

So I understand that probably lexical frequencies deal with types counting the words once and text frequencies deal with tokens counting the words multiple times in a corpus, therefore for the last, we need to take into account the word frequency in which those phonemes and graphemes occur.

So far I managed phoneme frequencies as it follows

Phoneme frequencies:

Lexical frequency is: (single count of a phoneme per word/total number of counted phonemes in the word list)*100= Lexical Frequency % of a specific phoneme in the word list.

Text frequency is similar but then I fail when trying to add the frequencies of the words in the word list: (all counts of a phoneme per word/total number of counted phonemes in the word list)*100 vs (sum of the word frequencies of the targeted words that contain the phoneme/total sum of all the frequencies of all the words in the list)= Text Frequency % of a specific phoneme in the word list.

PLEASE HELP ME TO FIND A FORMULA ON HOW TO CALCULATE THE LEXICAL FREQUENCY AND THE TEXT FREQUENCY of phonemes and graphemes.

There are many points of dicussion:

What are the key words and concepts that we know first before defining the ecological niche?

Which are the limits of a niche?

There are empty niches (vacancies), or just about habitats?

It is important to note the role of species within the niche?

It is posible talk about ecological niche when is only living one species in a habitat (i.e. Extreme conditions where just one species can get in, or first colonizators)? in this question maybe could exist if there is a viable populations that are having intraespecific relationships.

Is is important take account about viable populations?

Which delimits an ecological niche?

The niche is a feature of the environment or organisms? or we are thinking about chicken or the egg?

Ecological niches change, are mutable?

Exists status (any function or profesion) of species within an ecological niche?

This is the definition that I made, but i'm not sure if is a good one:

The ecological niche is a n dimensional space-time characterized by a set of relationships among limiting factors (biotic and abiotic) and the presence of a one species (with existence of intraspecific relationships) or more, where they evolve through the dynamics of viable populations.

How can we bring together all These questions and others That May be Proposed to define the ecological niche?

Could give me please some guidelines to know where to start? I'm looking for the metabolic pathway of resveratrol and thus find a way to see their influence on some cofactor or the same growth hormone.

There is an review to have an panorame of this topic.

Thank you

Unlike science as we know, the Supra-science is a new trend is emerging, I still do not know who founded it, but what I know is that:

We are in the Boom of metaphysics, many people around the world became thirsty for knowledge on the spiritual side, but the problem was metaphysics is that they have some control or management information (such as epistemology) and because of This fact is that most of metaphysical knowledge today has been distorted to the point of being ridiculed and taken into account as fraud or quackery (many scientists are the first to refute).

Another problem is that many of these skills are mixed with knowledge of our ancestors in many cultures around the world, however unfortunately also that knowledge lost its essence, that is, their own indigenous are already transmitting the alleged knowledge of how distorted, we can see the consequences of this in many people, even in conflict with terrorism today.

The Supra-Science uses knowledge of any area, based on the knowledge that we know in science and traditional knowledge coupled with (not distorted) of metaphysics, religion, philosophy, among others. Do not put a filter or barrier to knowledge management, but is based on the practical application of this knowledge as a means of testing with new qualitative methods for cases that can not be subjected experimentally and only noticeable in situ, also takes into account those occasional, rare, cases events occurring rarely.

For example we can not prove experimentally what happened before the Big Bang, but there are methods of internal estimate that can give us such knowledge is said to Helena Petrovna Blavatsky, Edgar Cayce, Nostradamus, among many things (special cases) were out of a place called Akasha.

This seems like science fiction, but it is clear to see children today are born knowing things that nobody taught them.

The supra-science is not a question of belief or faith, is valid all that knowledge that has practical application that may contribute to the evolution of life. Then it is seen and tested through action is in any plane in which you want to work, whether physical, astral, emotional, psiqcológico, mental, spiritual, etc.

Supraciencia supposedly has its new methods are being developed to reliably manage their knowledge and are completely practical and verifiable, as long as the individuals who are trying to verify the conditions for it.

Well this is what I know about this current and know what you heard, this is just to tell more.

This work really reflects a consensus of the work done on this issue?It has any connection with the theory of endosymbiosis? There is a phylogenetic relationship from its origin? Be right handle the classification by or Supergroups Kingdoms?They correlate with studies of genomes of viruses? From that point of view the classification should be done ?.

In the images that I uploaded is a summary before 2015 classification of eukaryotes.

Let's discuss this important topic, thanks for your contribution.