Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.dsp > #6597 > unrolled thread

information theory?

Back to article view | Back to comp.dsp

Contents

  information theory? RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> - 2011-10-31 20:55 -0700
    Re: information theory? eric.jacobsen@ieee.org (Eric Jacobsen) - 2011-11-01 04:57 +0000
      Re: information theory? Chris <chris.santoro@gmail.com> - 2011-11-01 05:58 -0700
        Re: information theory? RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> - 2011-11-01 10:29 -0700
          Re: information theory? jim <retnuh2011@gmail.com> - 2011-11-01 11:13 -0700
            Re: information theory? jim <retnuh2011@gmail.com> - 2011-11-01 14:39 -0700
          Re: information theory? robert bristow-johnson <rbj@audioimagination.com> - 2011-11-01 16:04 -0400
            OT: information theory? Jerry Avins <jya@ieee.org> - 2011-11-01 18:06 -0400
            Re: information theory? glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> - 2011-11-01 22:46 +0000
          Re: information theory? "BJACOBY@teranews.com" <benj@iwaynet.net> - 2011-11-01 22:38 -0500
            Re: information theory? Les Cargill <lcargill99@comcast.com> - 2011-11-02 17:06 -0500
              Re: information theory? "steveu" <steveu@n_o_s_p_a_m.coppice.org> - 2011-11-02 19:41 -0500
              Re: information theory? Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2011-11-03 06:58 -0500
                Re: information theory? "GO-HERE .NL" <gdewilde@gmail.com> - 2011-11-03 08:57 -0700
            Re: information theory? Lofty Goat <rlwatkins@gmail.com> - 2011-11-02 19:44 -0500
              Re: information theory? "Christopher J. Henrich" <chenrich@monmouth.com> - 2011-11-02 22:40 -0400
                Re: information theory? Lofty Goat <rlwatkins@gmail.com> - 2011-11-03 23:21 -0500
          Re: information theory? Martin Brown <|||newspam|||@nezumi.demon.co.uk> - 2011-11-02 08:47 +0000
            Re: information theory? (copyright question followup) JohnF <john@please.see.sig.for.email.com> - 2011-11-02 09:48 +0000
              Re: information theory? (copyright question followup) Martin Brown <|||newspam|||@nezumi.demon.co.uk> - 2011-11-02 10:02 +0000
                Re: information theory? (copyright question followup) Martin Brown <|||newspam|||@nezumi.demon.co.uk> - 2011-11-02 16:46 +0000
                Re: information theory? (copyright question followup) Bernd Jendrissek <bernd.jendrissek@gmail.com> - 2011-11-02 15:04 -0700
              Re: information theory? (copyright question followup) David Eather <eather@tpg.com.au> - 2011-11-03 04:00 +1000
                Re: information theory? (copyright question followup) unruh <unruh@physics.ubc.ca> - 2011-11-02 19:05 +0000
              Re: information theory? (copyright question followup) "J. Clarke" <jclarkeusenet@cox.net> - 2011-11-24 08:42 -0500
                Re: information theory? (copyright question followup) Richard Outerbridge <outer@interlog.com> - 2011-11-25 01:37 -0500
                  Re: information theory? (copyright question followup) Les Cargill <lcargill99@comcast.com> - 2011-11-25 11:37 -0600
            Re: information theory? RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> - 2011-11-02 11:38 -0700
              Re: information theory? Martin Brown <|||newspam|||@nezumi.demon.co.uk> - 2011-11-03 08:51 +0000
          Re: information theory? Chris <chris.santoro@gmail.com> - 2011-11-02 08:02 -0700
            Re: information theory? robert bristow-johnson <rbj@audioimagination.com> - 2011-11-02 09:38 -0700
            Re: information theory? RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> - 2011-11-02 11:51 -0700
              Re: information theory? VWWall <vwall@large.invalid> - 2011-11-02 15:08 -0700
                Re: information theory? Richard Outerbridge <outer@interlog.com> - 2011-11-02 19:59 -0400
                  Re: information theory? Frederick Williams <freddywilliams@btinternet.com> - 2011-11-04 20:41 +0000
                    Re: information theory? "krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz" <krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> - 2011-11-04 16:59 -0500
                      Re: information theory? jim <retnuh2011@gmail.com> - 2011-11-04 15:28 -0700
                      Re: information theory? Jerry Avins <jya@ieee.org> - 2011-11-04 21:09 -0400
                        Re: information theory? ggr@nope.ucsd.edu (Greg Rose) - 2011-11-05 02:11 +0000
                        Re: information theory? Frederick Williams <freddywilliams@btinternet.com> - 2011-11-05 11:53 +0000
                      Re: information theory? "Mike Terry" <news.dead.person.stones@darjeeling.plus.com> - 2011-11-05 17:32 +0000
                  Re: information theory? jim <retnuh2011@gmail.com> - 2011-11-06 18:41 -0800
                Re: information theory? RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> - 2011-11-03 21:54 -0700
                  Re: information theory? "BJACOBY@teranews.com" <benj@iwaynet.net> - 2011-11-04 03:42 -0500
                  Re: information theory? "Peter Webb" <webbfamily@optusnetDIESPAMDIE.com.au> - 2011-11-04 20:33 +1100
                    Re: information theory? Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2011-11-04 05:10 -0500
                      Re: information theory? kym@kymhorsell.com - 2011-11-04 10:50 +0000
                        Re: information theory? "Peter Webb" <webbfamily@optusnetDIESPAMDIE.com.au> - 2011-11-04 22:14 +1100
                          Re: information theory? "Jesse F. Hughes" <jesse@phiwumbda.org> - 2011-11-04 09:13 -0400
                            Re: information theory? Spehro Pefhany <speffSNIP@interlogDOTyou.knowwhat> - 2011-11-04 10:32 -0400
                              Re: information theory? "Androcles" <Headmaster@Hogwarts.physics.October.2011> - 2011-11-04 18:02 +0000
                                Re: information theory? jim <retnuh2011@gmail.com> - 2011-11-07 15:54 -0800
                        Re: information theory? VWWall <vwall@large.invalid> - 2011-11-04 09:50 -0700
                          Re: information theory? jim <retnuh2011@gmail.com> - 2011-11-04 12:41 -0700
                          Re: information theory? jim <retnuh2011@gmail.com> - 2011-11-04 13:40 -0700
                      Re: information theory? "Androcles" <Headmaster@Hogwarts.physics.October.2011> - 2011-11-04 11:35 +0000
                    Re: information theory? Martin Brown <|||newspam|||@nezumi.demon.co.uk> - 2011-11-04 10:31 +0000
                      Re: information theory? "Peter Webb" <webbfamily@optusnetDIESPAMDIE.com.au> - 2011-11-04 21:51 +1100
                      Re: information theory? "BJACOBY@teranews.com" <benj@iwaynet.net> - 2011-11-04 14:18 -0500
                      Re: information theory? Jerry Avins <jya@ieee.org> - 2011-11-04 15:56 -0400
                      Re: information theory? RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> - 2011-12-21 17:49 -0800
                        Re: information theory? Les Cargill <lcargill99@comcast.com> - 2011-12-21 20:07 -0600
                        Re: information theory? Richard Outerbridge <outer@interlog.com> - 2011-12-22 03:08 -0500
                          Re: information theory? Martin Brown <|||newspam|||@nezumi.demon.co.uk> - 2011-12-22 08:30 +0000
                            Re: information theory? John Devereux <john@devereux.me.uk> - 2011-12-22 10:12 +0000
                            Re: information theory? "Peter Webb" <r.peter.webbbbb@gmail.com> - 2011-12-22 21:14 +1100
                    Re: information theory? "Androcles" <Headmaster@Hogwarts.physics.October.2011> - 2011-11-04 11:00 +0000
                  Re: information theory? Casper H.S. Dik <Casper.Dik@OrSPaMcle.COM> - 2011-11-04 09:45 +0000
                    Re: information theory? unruh <unruh@physics.ubc.ca> - 2011-11-04 19:05 +0000
                Re: information theory? jim <retnuh2011@gmail.com> - 2011-11-06 17:11 -0800
                  Re: information theory? jim <retnuh2011@gmail.com> - 2011-11-07 06:23 -0800
                    Re: information theory? jim <retnuh2011@gmail.com> - 2011-11-07 11:29 -0800
                    Re: information theory? jim <retnuh2011@gmail.com> - 2011-11-08 04:41 -0800
                      Re: information theory? "Michael A. Terrell" <mike.terrell@earthlink.net> - 2011-11-08 13:46 -0500
              Re: information theory? "BJACOBY@teranews.com" <benj@iwaynet.net> - 2011-11-03 03:32 -0500
              Re: information theory? Chris <chris.santoro@gmail.com> - 2011-11-03 08:39 -0700
              Re: information theory? Chris <chris.santoro@gmail.com> - 2011-11-03 08:28 -0700

Page 2 of 4 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4  Next page →

#6630 — Re: information theory? (copyright question followup)

On 02/11/2011 10:02, Martin Brown wrote:
> On 02/11/2011 09:48, JohnF wrote:
>> In sci.math Martin Brown<|||newspam|||@nezumi.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>> [[snip]]
>>> You could do worse than look for the collected works of Ed Jaynes - it
>>> used to be available online at one time but now it is published.
>>>
>>> http://www.amazon.com/T-Jaynes-Probability-Statistics-Statistical/dp/0792302133
>>>
>>
>> Just curious -- if it was freely available online at one time,
>> and I assume legally at that time, how does later publishing
>> a paper copy retroactively affect online legality? I'd have
>> assumed any originally-legal online info remains legal regardless
>> of who else prints it on paper. Is that wrong?
>
> I don't know. ISTR it was online as a part of a global proofing effort.
> When that was finished it looks like the online copy was removed.
>
> (at least if it is still there I can't see it now)
>
> It was at: http://bayes.wustl.edu/etj/prob.html
>
> Still linked to from Bayesian resources at Cornell:
>
> http://www.astro.cornell.edu/staff/loredo/bayes/

I know it is not usually done to follow up your own post, but in this 
case it is to say that the second link on Cornell's site is to a 
previous draft version of a similar Jaynes compendium works book.

http://omega.albany.edu:8008/JaynesBook.html


-- 
Regards,
Martin Brown

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#6646 — Re: information theory? (copyright question followup)

On Nov 2, 12:02 pm, Martin Brown <|||newspam...@nezumi.demon.co.uk>
wrote:
> On 02/11/2011 09:48, JohnF wrote:
> > Just curious -- if it was freely available online at one time,
> > and I assume legally at that time, how does later publishing
> > a paper copy retroactively affect online legality? I'd have
> > assumed any originally-legal online info remains legal regardless
> > of who else prints it on paper. Is that wrong?

It doesn't - not automatically anyway. Note that you also don't
automatically have the right to redistribute a work, even if it was
previously available online or via carrier pigeon. Your (!) licence
has to grant you that right. OTOH, *use* of a work (as in, reading it)
is not reserved for the copyright holder. So if you already have a
copy, presumably legally obtained, you can continue reading it.

> I don't know. ISTR it was online as a part of a global proofing effort.
> When that was finished it looks like the online copy was removed.
>
> (at least if it is still there I can't see it now)
>
> It was at:http://bayes.wustl.edu/etj/prob.html

Try http://web.archive.org/web/20020124204123/http://bayes.wustl.edu/etj/prob.html

For extra credit: discuss what rights the wayback machine has or
presumes in order to meet its mission.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#6635 — Re: information theory? (copyright question followup)

On 2/11/2011 7:48 PM, JohnF wrote:
> In sci.math Martin Brown<|||newspam|||@nezumi.demon.co.uk>  wrote:
>> [[snip]]
>> You could do worse than look for the collected works of Ed Jaynes - it
>> used to be available online at one time but now it is published.
>>
>> http://www.amazon.com/T-Jaynes-Probability-Statistics-Statistical/dp/0792302133
>
> Just curious -- if it was freely available online at one time,
> and I assume legally at that time, how does later publishing
> a paper copy retroactively affect online legality? I'd have
> assumed any originally-legal online info remains legal regardless
> of who else prints it on paper. Is that wrong?

It depends solely on the copyright status. How a work is distributed is 
entirely at the discretion of the lawful owner of the copyright owner He 
can for example offer a work free on-line for a a period of time and 
then rescind that offer and the work is no longer available on-line for 
free.

If the copyright owner surrenders their copyright on a piece of work, 
for example by stating the piece of work is in the public domain, they 
then cannot re-instate their copyright in anyway and the work remains 
freely distributable in the public domain.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#6641 — Re: information theory? (copyright question followup)

["Followup-To:" header set to sci.crypt.]
On 2011-11-02, David Eather <eather@tpg.com.au> wrote:
> On 2/11/2011 7:48 PM, JohnF wrote:
>> In sci.math Martin Brown<|||newspam|||@nezumi.demon.co.uk>  wrote:
>>> [[snip]]
>>> You could do worse than look for the collected works of Ed Jaynes - it
>>> used to be available online at one time but now it is published.
>>>
>>> http://www.amazon.com/T-Jaynes-Probability-Statistics-Statistical/dp/0792302133
>>
>> Just curious -- if it was freely available online at one time,
>> and I assume legally at that time, how does later publishing
>> a paper copy retroactively affect online legality? I'd have
>> assumed any originally-legal online info remains legal regardless
>> of who else prints it on paper. Is that wrong?
>
> It depends solely on the copyright status. How a work is distributed is 
> entirely at the discretion of the lawful owner of the copyright owner He 
> can for example offer a work free on-line for a a period of time and 
> then rescind that offer and the work is no longer available on-line for 
> free.
>
> If the copyright owner surrenders their copyright on a piece of work, 
> for example by stating the piece of work is in the public domain, they 
> then cannot re-instate their copyright in anyway and the work remains 
> freely distributable in the public domain.

Well, no. They perhaps cannot sue someone who received that work under
the old license (depending on the terms of that license), but they can
certainly stop supplying that work themselves and issuing another
license for anything obtained from them. 

I believe "public domain" is a state, not a license. Something is in the
public domain if it satisfies certain requirements as listed under
copyright law. Eg, the work is more than x years old, where x is defined
in the law. Or was produced by the government, etc. It is not a license.
You can issue a license which renounces your claims to copyright but
unless you make that irrevokable, you can probably reclain your rights
under copyright in that same work thereafter (just not with respect
to copies people made under the old license.). Thus, I believe that I
could state today that I relinquish the copyright in this work, and
tomorrow could reinstate my claims under copyright. I just could not go
after people who in good faith made copies today. 


>
>

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#7143 — Re: information theory? (copyright question followup)

In article <j8r3l6$5ha$1@reader1.panix.com>, 
john@please.see.sig.for.email.com says...
> 
> In sci.math Martin Brown <|||newspam|||@nezumi.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> > [[snip]]
> > You could do worse than look for the collected works of Ed Jaynes - it 
> > used to be available online at one time but now it is published.
> > 
> > http://www.amazon.com/T-Jaynes-Probability-Statistics-Statistical/dp/0792302133
> 
> Just curious -- if it was freely available online at one time,
> and I assume legally at that time, how does later publishing
> a paper copy retroactively affect online legality? I'd have
> assumed any originally-legal online info remains legal regardless
> of who else prints it on paper. Is that wrong?

Don't conflate "free" with "public domain".  They aren't the same.  A 
copyright holder can make something available for free and later change 
his mind and charge for it.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#7148 — Re: information theory? (copyright question followup)

In article <MPG.293813d8de181f2098a3b2@hamster.jcbsbsdomain.local>,
 "J. Clarke" <jclarkeusenet@cox.net> wrote:

> In article <j8r3l6$5ha$1@reader1.panix.com>, 
> john@please.see.sig.for.email.com says...
> > 
> > In sci.math Martin Brown <|||newspam|||@nezumi.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> > > [[snip]]
> > > You could do worse than look for the collected works of Ed Jaynes - it 
> > > used to be available online at one time but now it is published.
> > > 
> > > http://www.amazon.com/T-Jaynes-Probability-Statistics-Statistical/dp/07923
> > > 02133
> > 
> > Just curious -- if it was freely available online at one time,
> > and I assume legally at that time, how does later publishing
> > a paper copy retroactively affect online legality? I'd have
> > assumed any originally-legal online info remains legal regardless
> > of who else prints it on paper. Is that wrong?
> 
> Don't conflate "free" with "public domain".  They aren't the same.  A 
> copyright holder can make something available for free and later change 
> his mind and charge for it.

Which is why serious licensees will always require free non-exclusive
perpetual licenses from just such copyright owners.  Their heirs and 
assigns will eventually get things into the public domain.  At least
things then stand a higher chance of avoiding silly legal challenges
and patent disputes.

outer

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#7157 — Re: information theory? (copyright question followup)

Richard Outerbridge wrote:
> In article<MPG.293813d8de181f2098a3b2@hamster.jcbsbsdomain.local>,
>   "J. Clarke"<jclarkeusenet@cox.net>  wrote:
>
>> In article<j8r3l6$5ha$1@reader1.panix.com>,
>> john@please.see.sig.for.email.com says...
>>>
>>> In sci.math Martin Brown<|||newspam|||@nezumi.demon.co.uk>  wrote:
>>>> [[snip]]
>>>> You could do worse than look for the collected works of Ed Jaynes - it
>>>> used to be available online at one time but now it is published.
>>>>
>>>> http://www.amazon.com/T-Jaynes-Probability-Statistics-Statistical/dp/07923
>>>> 02133
>>>
>>> Just curious -- if it was freely available online at one time,
>>> and I assume legally at that time, how does later publishing
>>> a paper copy retroactively affect online legality? I'd have
>>> assumed any originally-legal online info remains legal regardless
>>> of who else prints it on paper. Is that wrong?
>>
>> Don't conflate "free" with "public domain".  They aren't the same.  A
>> copyright holder can make something available for free and later change
>> his mind and charge for it.
>
> Which is why serious licensees will always require free non-exclusive
> perpetual licenses from just such copyright owners.  Their heirs and
> assigns will eventually get things into the public domain.

Says who? Zombie Jimi Hendrix just keeps releasing albums...

>  At least
> things then stand a higher chance of avoiding silly legal challenges
> and patent disputes.
>
> outer

--
Les Cargill

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#6639

On Nov 2, Martin Brown <|||newspam...@nezumi.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> >> Do you have a specific question? Or just want
> >> to lurk and learn?
>
> >I'd like to lurk someplace, where there are
> >discussions of current topics.  It's such a
> >rich field, there are always new ideas.
>
> >I read Shannon's paper long go, and found it fascinating
> >ever since.  In the most general sense, it's
> >applicable to so many areas.
>
> >>>> Are there any boards, or private blogs, dedicated
> >>>> to discussion of information theory?
>
> You don't really say which part of information
> theory you are interested in -

Coding, antenna arrays, compression. etc.

> You could do worse than look for the collected works
> of Ed Jaynes -

He's the one who published the original work
re-interpreting thermodynamics as information theory.

It was ingenious, but made no new predictions,
so the physics community yawned and said,
what's the point?

> it used to be available online at one time but
> now it is published.
>
> http://www.amazon.com/T-Jaynes-Probability-Statistics-Statistical/dp/...

I'm not looking for textbooks, but a place
to hang out with experts, discussing the
latest stuff.  Like the faculty lounge -

--
Rich

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#6656

On 02/11/2011 18:38, RichD wrote:
> On Nov 2, Martin Brown<|||newspam...@nezumi.demon.co.uk>  wrote:
>>>> Do you have a specific question? Or just want
>>>> to lurk and learn?
>>
>>> I'd like to lurk someplace, where there are
>>> discussions of current topics.  It's such a
>>> rich field, there are always new ideas.
>>
>>> I read Shannon's paper long go, and found it fascinating
>>> ever since.  In the most general sense, it's
>>> applicable to so many areas.
>>
>>>>>> Are there any boards, or private blogs, dedicated
>>>>>> to discussion of information theory?
>>
>> You don't really say which part of information
>> theory you are interested in -
>
> Coding, antenna arrays, compression. etc.

You will have to look hard and get invited to join any of the private 
lists that do exist. Like most of the academic topics and some other 
research lists into artificial intelligence they did once have Usenet 
groups but because of nutters and hipcryme flooding have moved to 
mailing lists / private blogs or other externally invisible means.
>
>> You could do worse than look for the collected works
>> of Ed Jaynes -
>
> He's the one who published the original work
> re-interpreting thermodynamics as information theory.
>
> It was ingenious, but made no new predictions,
> so the physics community yawned and said,
> what's the point?

That is an extremely unfair caricature. His contribution to information 
theory as applied to Bayesian inference and improper priors was widely 
respected in the experimental physics community and grudgingly accepted 
as a worthwhile challenge to the status quo by hard line frequentalists 
in the pure mathematics department. His maximum entropy based analysis 
of the bias in Wolfs dice data in the paper "Where do we stand on 
Maximum Entropy" Brandeis Lecture series was seminal.

The big difference now is that we have enough computing power to do a 
full Bayesian analysis these days rather than an approximation.
>
>> it used to be available online at one time but
>> now it is published.
>>
>> http://www.amazon.com/T-Jaynes-Probability-Statistics-Statistical/dp/...
>
> I'm not looking for textbooks, but a place
> to hang out with experts, discussing the
> latest stuff.  Like the faculty lounge -

They will find you if you are interesting enough.

-- 
Regards,
Martin Brown

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#6628

Be careful going down this path. For me it was much more interesting
in theory than in practice.

Me in 2008: "Like, what *is* the nature of information, man?" (waves
hand to clear smoke from the room)

Then I signed up for Info Theory, and I spent a whole semester taking
integrals of logs of probability distributions and proving that one
was bounded by the other.


On Nov 1, 1:29 pm, RichD <r_delaney2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Nov 1, Chris <chris.sant...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Do you have a specific question? Or just want to lurk and learn?
>
> I'd like to lurk someplace, where there are discussions
> of current topics.  It's such a rich field, there are always
> new ideas.
>
> > Information Theory was the hardest class I took in grad school. So
> > abstract, and so much probability.... but it's a cool topic
> > nonetheless.
>
> I read Shannon's paper long go, and found it fascinating
> ever since.  In the most general sense, it's applicable
> to so many areas.  For instance, people have recast
> thermodynamics as information processing.  Or, you
> could model the entire universe as a computer, and
> information theory applies.  It even describes human
> nature - manipulating symbols is what separates us
> from the apes.
>
> > > >Are there any boards, or private blogs, dedicated
> > > >to discussion of information theory?
>
> --
> Rich

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#6629

On Nov 2, 11:02 am, Chris <chris.sant...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Be careful going down this path. For me it was much more interesting
> in theory than in practice.
>
> Me in 2008: "Like, what *is* the nature of information, man?" (waves
> hand to clear smoke from the room)
>
> Then I signed up for Info Theory, and I spent a whole semester taking
> integrals of logs of probability distributions and proving that one
> was bounded by the other.
>

that (bounded integrals of logs of probability distributions) didn't
clear the room of the smoke?

r b-j

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#6640

On Nov 2, Chris <chris.sant...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Be careful going down this path. For me it was
> much more interesting in theory than in practice.
>
> Me in 2008: "Like, what *is* the nature of information,
> man?" (waves hand to clear smoke from the room)
>
> Then I signed up for Info Theory, and I spent
> a whole semester taking integrals of logs of
> probability distributions and proving that one
> was bounded by the other.

It's too bad you got so little out of it.
It's not 'just a theory', it's a field
where theory and practice coincide.
The theorists concoct the recipes, the
engineers follow the instructions, and
it works, bang on.  Fukengrooven.
And it's the root of many a Silly Con
Valley fortune.

I strongly suggest, if you have some
free neurons and time and nothing's good on
tv, read Shannon's original paper.  It's
utterly fucking brilliant.  There's no doubt,
in Valhalla, Shannon shares a table with Einstein.

It's sort of funny, he called it communication
theory, it was his disciples who popularized
'information theory'.

--
Rich

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#6645

RichD wrote:
> On Nov 2, Chris <chris.sant...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Be careful going down this path. For me it was
>> much more interesting in theory than in practice.
>>
>> Me in 2008: "Like, what *is* the nature of information,
>> man?" (waves hand to clear smoke from the room)
>>
>> Then I signed up for Info Theory, and I spent
>> a whole semester taking integrals of logs of
>> probability distributions and proving that one
>> was bounded by the other.
> 
> It's too bad you got so little out of it.
> It's not 'just a theory', it's a field
> where theory and practice coincide.
> The theorists concoct the recipes, the
> engineers follow the instructions, and
> it works, bang on.  Fukengrooven.
> And it's the root of many a Silly Con
> Valley fortune.
> 
> I strongly suggest, if you have some
> free neurons and time and nothing's good on
> tv, read Shannon's original paper.  It's
> utterly fucking brilliant.  There's no doubt,
> in Valhalla, Shannon shares a table with Einstein.
> 
I was at Bell Labs in 1949, and Betty Moore, Claude Shannon's wife, 
worked in the same department.  She complained that their new carpet 
didn't have deep enough nap to hide the solder droppings from the 
computer Claude was building.  It could perform math functions with its 
input/output being in Roman numerals.

> It's sort of funny, he called it communication
> theory, it was his disciples who popularized
> 'information theory'.
> 
Shannon took a very practical outlook on "information".  I recall how 
he would stop people in the halls and ask them to guess the next letter 
in a sentence he'd show them.  I remember one as: "A motorcycle has no 
reverse; it can not back up."  He used this method to determine the 
redundancy in the English language.

Most of the time, he was riding his unicycle down the hall!

-- 
Virg Wall

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#6650

In article <E8udnR4LarelIizTnZ2dnUVZ_ridnZ2d@earthlink.com>,
 VWWall <vwall@large.invalid> wrote:

[....]

> I was at Bell Labs in 1949, and Betty Moore, Claude Shannon's wife, 
> worked in the same department.  She complained that their new carpet 
> didn't have deep enough nap to hide the solder droppings from the 
> computer Claude was building.  It could perform math functions with its 
> input/output being in Roman numerals.
> 
> > It's sort of funny, he called it communication
> > theory, it was his disciples who popularized
> > 'information theory'.
> > 
> Shannon took a very practical outlook on "information".  I recall how 
> he would stop people in the halls and ask them to guess the next letter 
> in a sentence he'd show them.  I remember one as: "A motorcycle has no 
> reverse; it can not back up."  He used this method to determine the 
> redundancy in the English language.
> 
> Most of the time, he was riding his unicycle down the hall!

The seminal introductory work for me was the Undergraduate text
"Coding and Information Theory", by the late Richard W. Hamming,
1980, ISBN 0-13-139139-9 (perhaps one of the 1st books to have
an ISBN number).  It cost me $26.35 (CDN), hardcover, and I
devoured every morsel of it.

His later work "The Art of Probability" is also worth a read for
anyone who still believes in randomness.

outer

-- 
Random : An infinitesimal, yet omnidimensional, god of science.
Random often appears in the guise of a trickster named Error.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#6711

Richard Outerbridge wrote:
 
> The seminal introductory work for me was the Undergraduate text
> "Coding and Information Theory", by the late Richard W. Hamming,
> 1980, ISBN 0-13-139139-9 (perhaps one of the 1st books to have
> an ISBN number

Hardly, they date from 1970.  Also, it's "ISBN" not "ISBN number".

> ).  

-- 
When a true genius appears in the world, you may know him by 
this sign, that the dunces are all in confederacy against him.
Jonathan Swift: Thoughts on Various Subjects, Moral and Diverting

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#6716

On Fri, 04 Nov 2011 20:41:09 +0000, Frederick Williams
<freddywilliams@btinternet.com> wrote:

>Richard Outerbridge wrote:
> 
>> The seminal introductory work for me was the Undergraduate text
>> "Coding and Information Theory", by the late Richard W. Hamming,
>> 1980, ISBN 0-13-139139-9 (perhaps one of the 1st books to have
>> an ISBN number
>
>Hardly, they date from 1970.  Also, it's "ISBN" not "ISBN number".

Tight-assed pedants hate "ATM machines", too, right? 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#6717

On Nov 4, 5:59 pm, "k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz" <k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz>
wrote:
> On Fri, 04 Nov 2011 20:41:09 +0000, Frederick Williams
>
> <freddywilli...@btinternet.com> wrote:
> >Richard Outerbridge wrote:
>
> >> The seminal introductory work for me was the Undergraduate text
> >> "Coding and Information Theory", by the late Richard W. Hamming,
> >> 1980, ISBN 0-13-139139-9 (perhaps one of the 1st books to have
> >> an ISBN number
>
> >Hardly, they date from 1970.  Also, it's "ISBN" not "ISBN number".
>
> Tight-assed pedants hate "ATM machines", too, right?

   They even hate serial numbers themselves.
   So, that's were laser beams. holograms, and post Qwerty computation
came from.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#6720

On 11/4/2011 5:59 PM, krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz wrote:
> On Fri, 04 Nov 2011 20:41:09 +0000, Frederick Williams
> <freddywilliams@btinternet.com>  wrote:
>
>> Richard Outerbridge wrote:
>>
>>> The seminal introductory work for me was the Undergraduate text
>>> "Coding and Information Theory", by the late Richard W. Hamming,
>>> 1980, ISBN 0-13-139139-9 (perhaps one of the 1st books to have
>>> an ISBN number
>>
>> Hardly, they date from 1970.  Also, it's "ISBN" not "ISBN number".
>
> Tight-assed pedants hate "ATM machines", too, right?

And DC current.

Jerry
-- 
Engineering is the art of making what you want from things you can get.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#6721

In article <Y00tq.24192$vg7.8274@newsfe04.iad>,
Jerry Avins  <jya@ieee.org> wrote:
>On 11/4/2011 5:59 PM, krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz wrote:
>> On Fri, 04 Nov 2011 20:41:09 +0000, Frederick Williams
>> <freddywilliams@btinternet.com>  wrote:
>>
>>> Richard Outerbridge wrote:
>>>
>>>> The seminal introductory work for me was the Undergraduate text
>>>> "Coding and Information Theory", by the late Richard W. Hamming,
>>>> 1980, ISBN 0-13-139139-9 (perhaps one of the 1st books to have
>>>> an ISBN number
>>>
>>> Hardly, they date from 1970.  Also, it's "ISBN" not "ISBN number".
>>
>> Tight-assed pedants hate "ATM machines", too, right?
>
>And DC current.

And SPARC computer, which when fully expanded is
Scalable Processor Architecture (Reduced
Instruction Set Computer) Computer computer.

Greg.
-- 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#6723

Jerry Avins wrote:
> 
> On 11/4/2011 5:59 PM, krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz wrote:
> > On Fri, 04 Nov 2011 20:41:09 +0000, Frederick Williams
> > <freddywilliams@btinternet.com>  wrote:
> >
> >> Richard Outerbridge wrote:
> >>
> >>> The seminal introductory work for me was the Undergraduate text
> >>> "Coding and Information Theory", by the late Richard W. Hamming,
> >>> 1980, ISBN 0-13-139139-9 (perhaps one of the 1st books to have
> >>> an ISBN number
> >>
> >> Hardly, they date from 1970.  Also, it's "ISBN" not "ISBN number".
> >
> > Tight-assed pedants hate "ATM machines", too, right?
> 
> And DC current.

And, for a different reason, DC voltage.

-- 
When a true genius appears in the world, you may know him by 
this sign, that the dunces are all in confederacy against him.
Jonathan Swift: Thoughts on Various Subjects, Moral and Diverting

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 2 of 4 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | comp.dsp

csiph-web