Drew Headley
Posts: 152
Joined: Mar. 2006
|
It seems that AFDave is again claiming he won the information theory debate we had. I will just repost my response to this on page 78, the last time he claimed this.
| Quote |
| Quote |
Quote (afdave @ Nov. 10 2006,11:10)
Eric...
| Quote |
So now you're just saying you were "confused," Dave?
|
No. I'm saying YOU were confused. Possibly you still are.
|
AFDave, if you were not confused then why did I repeatedly need to correct your math and interpretation of Shannon information. Here is an example you never even addressed.
http://www.antievolution.org/cgi-bin....p=37099
This was in reply to your post asserting that the information content of a whitenoise signal could only exceed that of speech if you increased the transmission rate. You cited Shannon information theory to try and prove this, and you only showed that you misunderstood the theory. People on this board spent at least 10 pages correcting your misinterpretations.
Also, I am still getting the feeling that you are confusing information with meaning, this is not the case as Dr. Schneider points out in his primer on information theory:
| Quote |
We won't be dealing with the meaning or implications of
the information since nobody knows how to do that mathematically.
|
. What other reason do you have for asserting that the Churchill speech has more information than the fact that it has meaning to us? Do you have a metric that would give it more information than whitenoise?
We can waste our time going over the same material, or you can actually give me your calculation which shows that speech will exceed whitenoise in information needed to represent it. I did the math to prove my point, why not you do the math to prove yours. Your last post trying to do this showed a fundamental misunderstanding of Shannon's equations, which is addressed in the post linked above. |
AFDave never replied to this post.
|
