dpw writes:
> Of all the things I have to say, if there is only one thing you take
> seriously let it be this:
>
> We can maximize the global net baud rate for interpersonal
> communications by using combinatorial optimization to match people
> based on personality, interest, and education profiles.
This approach breaks "interpersonal communication" into two streams,
+ the actual interpersonal communication
+ communication of each potential communicant's "parameters" to the optimizer
The bulk of the latter stream must be considered in determining overall system
efficiency. If the amount of information required by the optimizer is high
(because a lot more detail must be specified than would be present in any
individual interpersonal communique), or if the parameters have to be
frequently updated, then the overhead of optimization could swamp any direct
gains, and the efficiency comparison could actually go against the
optimization scheme.
> I can think of a few people out there who know me and my favourite
> topics quite well, people who can read most of my text quickly and
> still understand it almost perfectly.
"People who know me" presumably means that there has been significant prior
communication and that (some interpretation of it) has been remembered. This
is sometimes characterized as establishing a shared context. It is these
contexts that must be somehow encoded for the optimizer.
It's still an open question how usefully such contexts can be reduced to byte
strings; much of Artificial Intelligence research has been an attempt to do
this. But even accepting that possibility, it is not at all obvious to me that
the many separate contexts which one person shares with other individuals and
groups can be combined into a unified set of optimizer parameters for each
person.
> For example, suppose you can only read and write in an unrelated
> language that uses the same character set,... there would be no actual
> communication taking place: a net baud rate of zero.
>
> If I to was write a cheerful account of my last trip to Vancouver
> mentioning only the places visited and people seen, the net baud rate
> would be much higher.
Mathematical information theory speaks to the probability of different
messages - low probability messages contain high information. It doesn't
require that each bit be equivalent to every other bit; such an assumption
simply makes the math easier, and is adequate for assessing _maximum_ channel
capacities.
Discounting bits that contain 'less information' than they might otherwise is
well within the capability of the formulas of information theory.
Transmitting in an unknown language is one such discounting, but so it
transmitting bland, "unsurprising" messages. In other words both examples
seem to me of arguably low net baud rate (but for different reasons).
>From this perspective, it is in this flexibility of discounting that the
overall scheme will ultimately break down. It will prove impossible to find a
discounting scheme which is simultaneously
1. consistent
2. general enough to usefully summarize a wide range of "intended meaning"
3. specific enough to make adequate distinctions for optimization purposes
4. computationally efficient
In short, the notion of "net baud rate" will turn out to not have a
practicable definition, and therefore to not be subject to optimization.
--
P-)
___o - o Peter Marks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
_-\_<, - _\ /\_ 15307 NE 202nd St., Woodinville, WA 98072
(*)/ (*) - (*)^(*) (425)489-0501 http://www.halcyon.com/marks
------------------------------
More comfortable AND faster ... that's REAL technology!
