Perplexed in Peoria  wrote:

> "Tim Tyler"  wrote in message
> news:c9fpqn$19n4$1{at}darwin.ediacara.org...
> > Perplexed in Peoria  wrote or quoted:
> > > "Tim Tyler"  wrote in message
> > > > Jim Menegay  wrote or quoted:
> >
> > > > > The ideal digital bowling lane would slope toward
the gutters
> > > > > from the center (the threshold).  And it is this
"basin of
> > > > > attraction" feature in the dynamics that
distinguishes digital
> > > > > from analog.
> > > >
> > > > ...but surely analog systems can exhibit basins of
attraction as well.
> > >
> > > But surely an IDEAL analog system will not.  See my reply to John.
> >
> > Can't seem to find that reply.
> 
> Damn, the reply seems to have been lost by Google Groups.  It was a
> long one and I didn't save a copy.  Dumb of me.
> 
> I will try to compose an equivalent response within the next few
> days.  I am currently busy searching the web for tutorials on
> information theory - particularly as applied to analog signals.
> So, my eventual response may be much better than the lost
> original

Most of my really excellent articles get lost, leaving only the mediocre
ones. Can't exactly explain it...
> 
> In the meantime, the main thrust of my response to John was
> that any discussion on these topics has to take place in
> the context of Shannon's communication theory.  That means:
> 
> 1.  That information theory inevitably carries a dose of
>     teleology - it is an engineering discipline, not a
>     branch of pure descriptive science.  Of course,
>     Nature (natural selection) is also an engineer.  A
>     central part of this is Shannon's idea of the active
>     channel.

Shannon began his classic paper by observing that it didn't matter what
the meaning of the message was in his theory, so long as the stream
received was the stream sent. I don't think this is in any way a
teleological theory, and I believe you are overinterpreting. It applies
nicely to a nonteleological system (for example, cell--cell signalling).
> 
> 2.  Hence "analog" and "digital" cannot be
understood without
>     taking into account someone's intention to communicate.
>     Analog and digital are names for two different strategies
>     for encoding information physically.  They are not the
>     names for different physical situations.

That is how many people interpret the distinction, Jim, although I agree
with you here. It is an abstract rather than a concrete difference.
> 
> 3.  That an ideal analog channel for sending digital information
>     deliberately introduces distortions in the analog signal
>     (the basins).    But, an ideal analog channel for sending
>     analog information does not distort.

However, given the nature of thermodynamics, any channel introduces
extraneous noise...
> 
> As background, I have found an online copy of Shannon's
> original paper, which is worth reading even if you skip
> over some of the math:
> 
> http://cm.bell-labs.com/cm/ms/what/shannonday/paper.html


-- 
John S Wilkins PhD - www.wilkins.id.au
  a little emptier, a little spent
  as always by that quiver in the self,
  subjugated, yes, and obedient.  -- Seamus Heaney
---
þ RIMEGate(tm)/RGXPost V1.14 at BBSWORLD * Info{at}bbsworld.com

---
 * RIMEGate(tm)V10.2áÿ* RelayNet(tm) NNTP Gateway * MoonDog BBS
 * RgateImp.MoonDog.BBS at 6/2/04 6:25:27 AM