Post by thread:[OT] Light running backward?

If you have one of those CDs :-)) ----- Original Message ----- From: "David VanHorn" <spam_OUTdvanhornTakeThisOuTmicrobrix.com> To: "Microcontroller discussion list - Public." <.....piclistKILLspam@spam@mit.edu> Sent: Friday, May 12, 2006 9:03 AM Subject: Re: [OT] Light running backward? {Quote hidden}> > >> >> Does that mean I can hear satanic messages on my CDs now? > > > > You mean they weren't working before? :) > > > -- >> Feel the power of the dark side! Atmel AVR > --

"David VanHorn" > http://www.rochester.edu/news/show.php?id=2544 I don't get it. So this faster-than-light, backward-traveling pulse only works in erbium-laced fiber? ""Einstein said information can't travel faster than light, and in this case, as with all fast-light experiments, no information is truly moving faster than light," says Boyd." What does Mr. Boyd mean? You shine the laser onto the near end of the fiber, which creates a backward-going pulse on the opposite end -- how is that not transmitting information? Vitaliy

Someone posted this link a while back. I only made it to part 2 so I don't know if he answers this or not. (-: http://www.vega.org.uk/video/subseries/8 I'm not sure if what you ask falls into this category, but sometimes I wonder what is "information". Like there is this thing where a particle can turn at the same time as another particle anywhere in the universe. So in my cat sized brain I would think that you could use that somehow. But for some quantum reason you can't. So is it "information" only if you can use it or measure it? {Original Message removed}

Lindy Mayfield wrote: > > So is it "information" only if you can use it or measure it?> The light is > what travels, I guess. You're not transmitting info > faster than light, but speeding light up. Maybe? > > Mike H. [snip] > I'm not sure if what you ask falls into this category, but sometimes I > wonder what is "information". Like there is this thing where a particle > can turn at the same time as another particle anywhere in the universe. > So in my cat sized brain I would think that you could use that somehow. > But for some quantum reason you can't. I like this definition of information: information is anything that reduces uncertainty. The smallest unit of information is a bit, of course not only in the computer sense. Best regards, Vitaliy

> I like this definition of information: information is anything that > reduces > uncertainty. The smallest unit of information is a bit, of course not only > in the computer sense. Actually, sub-bit units of information are common, both in and out of computer science! I believe, for example, that knowledge of the probability of an on/off condition can be thought of as sub-bit. Also, see 'arithmetic coding' for information on compression schemes that depend dramatically on sub-bit information. Bob Ammerman RAm Systems

On Thu, 18 May 2006, Robert Ammerman wrote: >> I like this definition of information: information is anything that reduces >> uncertainty. The smallest unit of information is a bit, of course not only >> in the computer sense. > > Actually, sub-bit units of information are common, both in and out of > computer science! > > I believe, for example, that knowledge of the probability of an on/off > condition can be thought of as sub-bit. I think that the knowledge of any information about a bit represents at least one *more* bit. Peter

Robert Ammerman wrote: > Actually, sub-bit units of information are common, both in and out of > computer science! > > I believe, for example, that knowledge of the probability of an on/off > condition can be thought of as sub-bit. > > Also, see 'arithmetic coding' for information on compression schemes that > depend dramatically on sub-bit information. I think it's time once again for me to take my foot out of my mouth... However, can't you think of the knowledge of the probability of an on/off condition as answering a yes/no question (whether a value is within a certain interval)? Best regards, Vitaliy

Bill & Pookie wrote: > So far information has two dimensions, state and time, would location be a > third? "X marks the spot" for buried treasure would be an example of > this. If I understand you correctly, it seems that location (the description of a location) is just a form of what you call "state". I think it's a rather complex thing to try to measure information in general. What we generally call "information" only becomes "informative" in a specific context. How to measure the amount of information in the context? It takes about 10 bits to store any location on this planet with 1 degree resolution, but this "information" requires a lot of context to actually lead you to the spot it describes. How many bits are in the context? Gerhard

Guess I was trying to say something profound, but missed the mark a bit. Like Guich Koock would say when someone asked him how he got his name, "My father raised dogs and by the time I came along, all the good names were taken." Would have liked to have had time as my deminsion, but that was allready taken. Can you seperate the content from the information? Does the information contain the one bit (yes/no) answer as well as the three page question? How do we reference information so we can find it? Why doesn't Google use the Duwey Decimal Syatem? Bill {Original Message removed}

Bill & Pookie wrote: > Can you seperate the content from the information? Does the information > contain the one bit (yes/no) answer as well as the three page question? IMO, when speaking about information content, no and yes, respectively. A bit without doesn't convey any useful information at all, besides that in that specific transmission one state was of one kind. To be able to put any information into that, you need to have the "question". > How do we reference information so we can find it? Now you're getting really profound :) > Why doesn't Google use the Duwey Decimal Syatem? Someone would have to classify content manually. I believe that would make Google either very "thin" or very expensive. Besides, I'm not sure the system would be any better than keywords, especially given the type of content. What do you like about the system? Gerhard

----- Original Message ----- From: "Gerhard Fiedler" <listsKILLspamconnectionbrazil.com> To: <.....piclistKILLspam.....mit.edu> Sent: Thursday, May 25, 2006 3:54 AM Subject: Re: [OT] Light running backward? {Quote hidden}> Bill & Pookie wrote: > >> Can you seperate the content from the information? Does the information >> contain the one bit (yes/no) answer as well as the three page question? > > IMO, when speaking about information content, no and yes, respectively. A > bit without doesn't convey any useful information at all, besides that in > that specific transmission one state was of one kind. To be able to put > any > information into that, you need to have the "question". > >> How do we reference information so we can find it? > > Now you're getting really profound :) > >> Why doesn't Google use the Duwey Decimal Syatem? > > Someone would have to classify content manually. I believe that would make > Google either very "thin" or very expensive. > > Besides, I'm not sure the system would be any better than keywords, > especially given the type of content. What do you like about the system? > > Gerhard > When I was in the stacks looking for books on chess, I was also near books on backgammon and mah jong. So liked the way simular topics were neghbors and could learn new stuff. Also at that time, considered the Dewey Decimal System to be universal. But google is great for finding new things that are unrelated. Serindippidy on steroids. Bill > --

Bill & Pookie wrote: > When I was in the stacks looking for books on chess, I was also near books > on backgammon and mah jong. So liked the way simular topics were neghbors > and could learn new stuff. The problem with any such system is that it has only one dimension of similarity. Most topics have several dimensions, and they get lost. You were looking a book about chess and other, similar table games are indeed similar. But you also could have looked for a book about chess strategy, and topics like martial arts (some good material about strategy), foreign politics (strategic planning is an important part of a good foreign policy), AI (research about formalizing strategic planning), chess programs (actual implementations of formal strategies), biographies of chess masters (which possibly contain some general information about strategy, especially when it's an autobiography) and other such quite interesting and similar topics would have been far, far away in the system. > Also at that time, considered the Dewey Decimal System to be universal. It's a bit more global than the World Series <g>, but apparently not the only player in town outside the USA. See e.g. http://www.udcc.org/ Gerhard

Gerhard Fiedler wrote: > Bill & Pookie wrote: > > >>When I was in the stacks looking for books on chess,...... > >>Also at that time, considered the Dewey Decimal System to be universal. > > It's a bit more global than the World Series <g>, but apparently not the > only player in town outside the USA. See e.g. http://www.udcc.org/ > > Gerhard > Very interesting, had my wife take a quick look- seems to an extension/standardization to the LC (Library of Congress)? D

----- Original Message ----- From: "Gerhard Fiedler" <EraseMElistsspam_OUTTakeThisOuTconnectionbrazil.com> To: <piclistspam_OUTmit.edu> Sent: Saturday, May 27, 2006 8:08 AM Subject: Re: [OT] Light running backward? {Quote hidden}> Bill & Pookie wrote: > >> When I was in the stacks looking for books on chess, I was also near >> books >> on backgammon and mah jong. So liked the way simular topics were >> neghbors >> and could learn new stuff. > > The problem with any such system is that it has only one dimension of > similarity. Most topics have several dimensions, and they get lost. You > were looking a book about chess and other, similar table games are indeed > similar. But you also could have looked for a book about chess strategy, > and topics like martial arts (some good material about strategy), foreign > politics (strategic planning is an important part of a good foreign > policy), AI (research about formalizing strategic planning), chess > programs > (actual implementations of formal strategies), biographies of chess > masters > (which possibly contain some general information about strategy, > especially > when it's an autobiography) and other such quite interesting and similar > topics would have been far, far away in the system. > > Wow, banks and dairy farmers share an interest in queing theory for their depositers. If they used the key word in their publication then google could discover both lines of information. Just the title of a book can be both informative or missleading, such as "Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance". I think that the search engines developed so fast and was much better than what precedded them that now the net may suffer with the net resources they use collecting the information and the impossibile amount of information they return for a search. But they are intrenched and might remain the standard for a long time. But I do live them. Bill >> Also at that time, considered the Dewey Decimal System to be universal. > > It's a bit more global than the World Series <g>, but apparently not the > only player in town outside the USA. See e.g. http://www.udcc.org/ > > Gerhard > > --

> Why doesn't Google use the Duwey Decimal Syatem? Because that classifies whole books, and Google searches web pages. A book is generally on one topic, or can usually be classified as such, but a web page could easily span a dozen different unrelated Dewey classifications - just think how many things someone's Blog might cover! And there would be some pages for which Dewey has no classification, because nobody writes books on it (charity appeals, job adverts, etc). Cheers, Howard Winter St.Albans, England

Howard Winter wrote: >>Why doesn't Google use the Duwey Decimal Syatem? > > > Because that classifies whole books, and Google searches web pages. A book is generally on one topic, or can > usually be classified as such, but a web page could easily span a dozen different unrelated Dewey > classifications - just think how many things someone's Blog might cover! And there would be some pages for > which Dewey has no classification, because nobody writes books on it (charity appeals, job adverts, etc). > > Cheers, > Howard Winter > St.Albans, England > The LC is way better - more specific for techy stuff IMHO