Tillbaka till svenska Fidonet
English   Information   Debug  
ECHOLIST   0/18295
EC_SUPPORT   0/318
ELECTRONICS   0/359
ELEKTRONIK.GER   1534
ENET.LINGUISTIC   0/13
ENET.POLITICS   0/4
ENET.SOFT   0/11701
ENET.SYSOP   33773
ENET.TALKS   0/32
ENGLISH_TUTOR   0/2000
EVOLUTION   0/1335
FDECHO   0/217
FDN_ANNOUNCE   0/7068
FIDONEWS   23439
FIDONEWS_OLD1   0/49742
FIDONEWS_OLD2   0/35949
FIDONEWS_OLD3   0/30874
FIDONEWS_OLD4   0/37224
FIDO_SYSOP   12841
FIDO_UTIL   0/180
FILEFIND   0/209
FILEGATE   0/212
FILM   0/18
FNEWS_PUBLISH   4155
FN_SYSOP   41520
FN_SYSOP_OLD1   71952
FTP_FIDO   0/2
FTSC_PUBLIC   0/13558
FUNNY   0/4886
GENEALOGY.EUR   0/71
GET_INFO   105
GOLDED   0/408
HAM   0/16041
HOLYSMOKE   0/6791
HOT_SITES   0/1
HTMLEDIT   0/71
HUB203   466
HUB_100   264
HUB_400   39
HUMOR   0/29
IC   0/2851
INTERNET   0/424
INTERUSER   0/3
IP_CONNECT   719
JAMNNTPD   0/233
JAMTLAND   0/47
KATTY_KORNER   0/41
LAN   0/16
LINUX-USER   0/19
LINUXHELP   0/1155
LINUX   0/22002
LINUX_BBS   0/957
mail   18.68
mail_fore_ok   249
MENSA   0/341
MODERATOR   0/102
MONTE   0/992
MOSCOW_OKLAHOMA   0/1245
MUFFIN   0/783
MUSIC   0/321
N203_STAT   894
N203_SYSCHAT   313
NET203   321
NET204   69
NET_DEV   0/10
NORD.ADMIN   0/101
NORD.CHAT   0/2572
NORD.FIDONET   189
NORD.HARDWARE   0/28
NORD.KULTUR   0/114
NORD.PROG   0/32
NORD.SOFTWARE   0/88
NORD.TEKNIK   0/58
NORD   0/453
OCCULT_CHAT   0/93
OS2BBS   0/787
OS2DOSBBS   0/580
OS2HW   0/42
OS2INET   0/37
OS2LAN   0/134
OS2PROG   0/36
OS2REXX   0/113
OS2USER-L   207
OS2   0/4779
OSDEBATE   0/18996
PASCAL   0/490
PERL   0/457
PHP   0/45
POINTS   0/405
POLITICS   0/29554
POL_INC   0/14731
PSION   103
R20_ADMIN   1117
R20_AMATORRADIO   0/2
R20_BEST_OF_FIDONET   13
R20_CHAT   0/893
R20_DEPP   0/3
R20_DEV   399
R20_ECHO2   1379
R20_ECHOPRES   0/35
R20_ESTAT   0/719
R20_FIDONETPROG...
...RAM.MYPOINT
  0/2
R20_FIDONETPROGRAM   0/22
R20_FIDONET   0/248
R20_FILEFIND   0/24
R20_FILEFOUND   0/22
R20_HIFI   0/3
R20_INFO2   2632
R20_INTERNET   0/12940
R20_INTRESSE   0/60
R20_INTR_KOM   0/99
R20_KANDIDAT.CHAT   42
R20_KANDIDAT   28
R20_KOM_DEV   112
R20_KONTROLL   0/13030
R20_KORSET   0/18
R20_LOKALTRAFIK   0/24
R20_MODERATOR   0/1852
R20_NC   76
R20_NET200   245
R20_NETWORK.OTH...
...ERNETS
  0/13
R20_OPERATIVSYS...
...TEM.LINUX
  0/44
R20_PROGRAMVAROR   0/1
R20_REC2NEC   534
R20_SFOSM   0/340
R20_SF   0/108
R20_SPRAK.ENGLISH   0/1
R20_SQUISH   107
R20_TEST   2
R20_WORST_OF_FIDONET   12
RAR   0/9
RA_MULTI   106
RA_UTIL   0/162
REGCON.EUR   0/2055
REGCON   0/13
SCIENCE   0/1206
SF   0/239
SHAREWARE_SUPPORT   0/5146
SHAREWRE   0/14
SIMPSONS   0/169
STATS_OLD1   0/2539.065
STATS_OLD2   0/2530
STATS_OLD3   0/2395.095
STATS_OLD4   0/1692.25
SURVIVOR   0/495
SYSOPS_CORNER   0/3
SYSOP   0/84
TAGLINES   0/112
TEAMOS2   0/4530
TECH   0/2617
TEST.444   0/105
TRAPDOOR   0/19
TREK   0/755
TUB   0/290
UFO   0/40
UNIX   0/1316
USA_EURLINK   0/102
USR_MODEMS   0/1
VATICAN   0/2740
VIETNAM_VETS   0/14
VIRUS   0/378
VIRUS_INFO   0/201
VISUAL_BASIC   0/473
WHITEHOUSE   0/5187
WIN2000   0/101
WIN32   0/30
WIN95   0/4275
WIN95_OLD1   0/70272
WINDOWS   0/1517
WWB_SYSOP   0/419
WWB_TECH   0/810
ZCC-PUBLIC   0/1
ZEC   4

 
4DOS   0/134
ABORTION   0/7
ALASKA_CHAT   0/506
ALLFIX_FILE   0/1313
ALLFIX_FILE_OLD1   0/7997
ALT_DOS   0/152
AMATEUR_RADIO   0/1039
AMIGASALE   0/14
AMIGA   0/331
AMIGA_INT   0/1
AMIGA_PROG   0/20
AMIGA_SYSOP   0/26
ANIME   0/15
ARGUS   0/924
ASCII_ART   0/340
ASIAN_LINK   0/651
ASTRONOMY   0/417
AUDIO   0/92
AUTOMOBILE_RACING   0/105
BABYLON5   0/17862
BAG   135
BATPOWER   0/361
BBBS.ENGLISH   0/382
BBSLAW   0/109
BBS_ADS   0/5290
BBS_INTERNET   0/507
BIBLE   0/3563
BINKD   0/1119
BINKLEY   0/215
BLUEWAVE   0/2173
CABLE_MODEMS   0/25
CBM   0/46
CDRECORD   0/66
CDROM   0/20
CLASSIC_COMPUTER   0/378
COMICS   0/15
CONSPRCY   0/899
COOKING   27601
COOKING_OLD1   0/24719
COOKING_OLD2   0/40862
COOKING_OLD3   0/37489
COOKING_OLD4   0/35496
COOKING_OLD5   9370
C_ECHO   0/189
C_PLUSPLUS   0/31
DIRTY_DOZEN   0/201
DOORGAMES   0/1974
DOS_INTERNET   0/196
duplikat   5999
Möte EVOLUTION, 1335 texter
 lista första sista föregående nästa
Text 26, 124 rader
Skriven 2004-09-11 21:47:00 av Tim Tyler (1:278/230)
Ärende: Re: Dawkins gives incorre
=================================


Guy Hoelzer <hoelzer@unr.edu> wrote or quoted:
> in article chsg65$1hqg$1@darwin.ediacara.org, Tim Tyler at tim@tt1lock.org:
> > Guy Hoelzer <hoelzer@unr.edu> wrote or quoted:

> >> In this way, the sensitivity of p_i to individual differences in
> >> perception is minimized.
> >> This transition in the meaning of p_i happened without much notice for
many
> >> (most? The vast majority?) information scientists because it increased the
> >> extent of objectivity and measurement agreement among scientists, and
> >> extended the utility of information theory throughout the physical
sciences.
> > 
> > Nothing fitting this description ever happened.
> 
> Are you arguing that treating p_i as frequency is almost never done, or that
> this practice has not increased in frequency?  Or are you just arguing that
> you don't think it has become sufficiently common to call it a transition?

p_i is /always/ the probability of the i'th symbol arising.

Sometimes the probabilities are determined completly by symbol frequencies 
- but the p_i's are never frequencies.

They always add up to 1.0 - like probabilities do.

> >>> An observer who knows what symbol is coming next (because he
> >>> has seen a very similar message before) will assign different
> >>> probabilites to the symbols from an observer who is seeing
> >>> the message for the first time - and both will assign different
> >>> probabilities from an observer who is not even familiar with
> >>> the language the message is written in.
> >> 
> >> This is a nice description of the (severe IMHO) limitations of the
> >> "telegraph"-context-laden version of the theory that Shannon originally
> >> devised for his telegraph-company employer.  With all of your protestation
> >> about my lack of fidelity to Shannon's original context, you haven't
> >> suggested any reasons why treating p_i as a frequency, rather than a
> >> probability, is problematic.  Can you think of any such problems? [...]
> > 
> > The ones above?
> 
> I didn't see any problems suggested in your previous post or in the material
> I snipped above, which was a description of how probabilities and
> frequencies differ.  Your argument then seemed to consist merely of saying
> that Shannon originally meant p_i to be a probability, rather than a
> frequency, to which I already agreed.  None of that addresses my question.

If you used freqencies, it would be equivalent to considering what
new would be learned by an observer with very little brain - whose only 
knowledge of the future consits of measuring symbol frequencies, and 
assuming what has happened before will happen again.

Such observers are surely not common.

> > p_i can only be treated as a frequency, *if* the source is something like
> > a RNG - where the probability of symbols being emitted is constant - and
> > does not depend on the history of the stream or environmental conditions.
> 
> That may be the condition under which a probability and a frequency are
> interchangeable, but it still does not address the issue at hand.  Given the
> differences between probabilities and frequencies, why isn't it better to
> think of p_i as a frequency instead of a probability as Shannon first had in
> mind?

Currently Shannon's information represents the "suprise value" of
a message - an estimate of how unlikely the observer thinks it is
to be received.

I.e.:

``Shannon's entropy measure came to be taken as a measure of the 
  uncertainty about the realization of a random variable. It thus served 
  as a proxy capturing the concept of information contained in a message 
  as opposed to the portion of the message that is strictly determined 
  (hence predictable) by inherent structures.''

 -
http://www.all-science-fair-projects.com/science_fair_projects_encyclopedia/Information_entropy


An estimate of how likely a particular, stupid observer thinks it
is to be received seems likely to be lacking in utility by comparison.

> > That is certainly not the general case - and it is not the case with many
> > common sorts of message streams either.
> >  
> >> If not, then don't you think it is worth considering the more extensive
> >> version of the theory?
> > 
> > It isn't "more extensive".
> 
> It is more absolutely extensive in its potential application and the breadth
> of its explanatory power because it overcomes the limitations of trying to
> approximate identical states among observers before they can agree upon the
> information content in a data set (an observation).

It is equivalent to calculating Shannon information for a rather dumb 
observer who is unable to perform simple logical reasoning :-(

It doesn't completely overcome the supposed "problem" of information being 
subjective  - since agents can still differ on the issue of the frequency 
of source symbols - depending on how much of the stream they have seen.

....and it would mean that the term "information" no longer represented
the "suprise value" of a message to most observers - and that's pretty
much the point of the term.

I don't see the resulting metric as being of much interest.

The term "information" already has a good meaning - and what you are
describing isn't it.
-- 
__________
 |im |yler  http://timtyler.org/  tim@tt1lock.org  Remove lock to reply.
---
ū RIMEGate(tm)/RGXPost V1.14 at BBSWORLD * Info@bbsworld.com

---
 * RIMEGate(tm)V10.2á˙* RelayNet(tm) NNTP Gateway * MoonDog BBS
 * RgateImp.MoonDog.BBS at 9/11/04 9:47:06 PM
 * Origin: MoonDog BBS, Brooklyn,NY, 718 692-2498, 1:278/230 (1:278/230)