You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
When a card is correctly recalled, it's not clear whether the ease factor or the interval should be updated first.
If we reference Piotr Wozniak's article and source code on super-memory.com, the next interval is calculated first, then the ease factor is updated after. The wikipedia page for SuperMemo also leads to believe this is the correct way.
Given the above, this is currently how the sm-2 package is implemented.
However, I found this page today from supermemo.guru which states
After each repetition, before computing the new interval, modify the E-Factor of the recently repeated item
This makes more sense to me intuitively as you're updating how easy the card is before determining the next interval. However, it should also be noted that this section of the wiki has an archive warning which states that
Archive materials are listed with minimum editorial intervention.
and
Literal use of the archive materials may mean that some erroneous claims may be included in the text
...meaning that that article could be outdated and incorrect.
So basically, I'm not sure which is correct.
If anyone has the answer, I'd love to hear it!
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
When a card is correctly recalled, it's not clear whether the ease factor or the interval should be updated first.
If we reference Piotr Wozniak's article and source code on super-memory.com, the next interval is calculated first, then the ease factor is updated after. The wikipedia page for SuperMemo also leads to believe this is the correct way.
Given the above, this is currently how the
sm-2
package is implemented.However, I found this page today from supermemo.guru which states
This makes more sense to me intuitively as you're updating how easy the card is before determining the next interval. However, it should also be noted that this section of the wiki has an archive warning which states that
and
...meaning that that article could be outdated and incorrect.
So basically, I'm not sure which is correct.
If anyone has the answer, I'd love to hear it!
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: