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 78, 169 rader
Skriven 2004-09-17 06:09:00 av Guy Hoelzer (1:278/230)
Ärende: Re: Dawkins gives incorre
=================================


in article cicd21$f2f$1@darwin.ediacara.org, Tim Tyler at tim@tt1lock.org
wrote on 9/16/04 8:55 AM:

> Guy Hoelzer <hoelzer@unr.edu> wrote or quoted:
>> in article ci7mqk$24qd$1@darwin.ediacara.org, Tim Tyler at tim@tt1lock.org
>>> Guy Hoelzer <hoelzer@unr.edu> wrote or quoted:
>>>> in article chvng2$2hqs$1@darwin.ediacara.org, Tim Tyler at
tim@tt1lock.org:
>>>>> 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:

[snip]

>>> A frequency is normally a measurement of the number of times that a
>>> repeated event occurs per unit time.
>> 
>> I am aware of that definition, but I am using a different conventional
>> meaning.  This distinction might be a source of some of our differences.
>> The definition I am using is the one I believe to be most commonly used in
>> the biological sciences, and it well represented by the one expressed by "A
>> Dictionary of Ecology, Evolution, and Systematics."  It reads:
>> 
>> "The number of items belonging to a category or class; the number of
>> occasions that a given species occurs in a series of examples."
>> 
>> This dictionary does not list any other definitions for "frequency."
> 
> I note that that still doesn't result in a series of numbers that add
> up to 1.0.

Good point.  That definition failed to mention that the frequency is "the
number of items belonging to a [particular] category or class" DIVIDED BY
THE TOTAL NUMBER OF ITEMS IN THE POPULATION.  That is why they must add to
unity.
 
[snip]

>> A good resource for learning about AIC and its application (IMHO) is the
>> book:
>> 
>> Burnham, K. P., and D. R. Anderson. 1998. Model selection and inference: a
>> practical information-theoretic approach. Springer-Verlag, New York, New
>> York, USA. 353 pp.
>> 
>> The authors explain why Kullback-Leibler information is more fundamental
>> than Shannon information and show that it is more general (it includes
>> Shannon information). It is Kullback-Leibler that is assumed under the AIC
>> paradigm, which does not posit an hypothetical observer, according to the
>> authors.  Instead, they argue, the set of AIC values (or adjusted analogues,
>> such as AICc) that you get out of a comparative analysis express the
>> relative distance of competing models from objective Truth.  That claim took
>> me by surprise when I first ran across it, but you really have to examine
>> the theory closely to make an informed judgment about it.
> 
> I had never heard of Kullback-Leibler information.
> 
> I visited http://googleduel.com/ with the terms
> 
> "shannon information" and "Kullback-Leibler information"
> 
> Shannon information won by more than 100 to 1.

I am not surprised, but this is very misleading with regard to the
fundamentals of information theory.  I think that if you ask anyone deeply
involved with information theory, they will tell you that KL information is
more general and fundamental to the theory than Shannon information, which
is a subset of KL information.
 
> Maybe an option for you would be to use one of the terms
> referring to this quantity - if it is what you are talking
> about.

I am pretty sure that the terms are the same as those I have been using,
although I appreciate that the sharing of terms among models can lead to
confusion.
 
> The terms "relative entropy", "divergence", "directed divergence",
> and "cross entropy" all appear to refer to this metric.
> 
> The metric represents a measure of distance between two probability
> distributions.  If the distributions are given, then metric does not
> depend on who measures it.
> 
> However Shannon information does not normally consider the probabilities
> it is considering to be given and agreed-upon in advance - instead it
> allows the possibility that different observers may have different
> information about the events and may make different estimates of
> their probabilities.  In the terminology of relative entropy,
> they would be said to be considering different models.
> 
> If you caluclate the /relative entropy/ between the predictions of
> different models and some fixed set of observations then you would
> indeed arrive at different values.
> 
>>>>> They always add up to 1.0 - like probabilities do.
>>>> 
>>>> Like frequencies always do.
>>> 
>>> Frequencies are usually measured in Hertz - and never add up to a
>>> dimensionless quantity such as 1.0.
>>> 
>>> Indeed, adding the values of frequencies together is usually a bad move:
>>> since 1hz+2hz != 3hz.
>> 
>> Under the definition provided above frequencies must always add to one if
>> you have included all possible types in your data.  For example, if you
>> consider the frequency of each allele present in a data set, those
>> frequencies must add to one.
> 
> How could they possibly - if the frequency is defined to be a count
> of the number of occurrences of an item in a set?
> 
> Frequencies have no upper bound.  They can become as large as you like.

Surely you recognize that it is conventional to talk about allele
frequencies, or any other type of frequencies in biological populations,
being constrained to add to unity.  There is no doubt in my mind that your
definition excludes the conventional usage in population biology in this
case.
 
> You appear to be talking about a proportion of some sort - not a frequency.

Yes.  In population biology a frequency is a proportion.  You may not like
it for perfectly good reasons, but that is the convention.  It is in all the
textbooks and it is used that way in the literature.
 
> Your unorthodox definition of frequency appears to matches your unusual
> definition of information.  This sort of thing seems bound to cause
> communication problems :-|

We obviously have different orthodoxies.  I granted you that my use of the
term "information" is different from the original use by Shannon, and argued
that this convention has changed over the decades.  I also grant you that
this convention hasn't changed in all scientific circles, so there are
surely others using it as you do.  I wrote that I did not have any data to
estimate the proportion (I almost wrote frequency) of the overall scientific
community that uses "information" in these two ways, so I would not argue
that your way is invalid.  It is just a difference we need to be careful of
in our communications.

On the other hand, I am certain that my use of "frequency" is the one used
by virtually ALL population biologists and evolutionary biologists.  It may
not be the "orthodox" definition, but it is certainly the conventional one.
 
>>> It doesn't appear to be what you are talking about - but it shares
>>> the element of observer-independence (though it tends to become
>>> language-dependent in the process).
>> 
>> You are correct that this is not exactly what I am talking about, but I do
>> not see how it is observer-dependent. [...]
> 
> I said it had "observer-*in*dependence" not "observer-dependence".

Sorry.   I read your sentence too quickly.  My bad!

Cheers,

Guy
---
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 9/17/04 6:09:30 AM
 * Origin: MoonDog BBS, Brooklyn,NY, 718 692-2498, 1:278/230 (1:278/230)