Some Strange News... [computer code, string theory]

[Aethelwulf]

I thought.. neh.. I can't leave it there.. he obviously doesn't know or realize that physicists really talk about bits.

So I went to youtube to find a video just for you to learn from. This is about quantum information... This lecture is in fact presented by the prestigious Leonard Susskind. You will soon realize, that it talks about zero's and one's, and if you know anything about information theory, which you obviously aren't aware of what it means in physics, this is about ''bits''.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Eeuq...feature=relmfu

enjoy

[cjameshuff]

I thought.. neh.. I can't leave it there.. he obviously doesn't know or realize that physicists really talk about bits.

Did you even read my post past the first four words? I included bits as one of the units used to quantify information...along with ban, nats, and trits. And if you want to bring quantum information into the discussion, not only are there qubits, but also qutrits and the general unit qudits.

[Aethelwulf]

Did you even read my post past the first four words? I included bits as one of the units used to quantify information...along with ban, nats, and trits. And if you want to bring quantum information into the discussion, not only are there qubits, but also qutrits and the general unit qudits.

No because you flat out called me wrong. I said when physicists speak about information they are usually talking about ''bits''.


Straight away you said, ''No, you are wrong.''

I am telling you, I am right.

[cjameshuff]

Straight away you said, ''No, you are wrong.''

Because you are wrong. You're confusing a unit with the quantity being measured by that unit.

[Jens]

I'm not surprised. But interpreting the pattern as a computer code has to be pretty arbitrary, I would think.

Maybe it's just me, but it seems to me that this discussion about whether binary is the best way of representing information detracts from the original intent of this thread, which to me is (the problem, that is) well expressed in the post I quoted. Maybe the stuff on binary versus ternary could be spun off into a new thread? My real interest, which I think is the interesting thing here, is how one would find "computer codes" within "string theory." Maybe they came up with an equation like:

e = mc (goto 20 if x>2) ^2

But that seems pretty ridiculous.

[Aethelwulf]

Because you are wrong. You're confusing a unit with the quantity being measured by that unit.

What are you talking about.

How have we got onto the discussion of units. Why can't you just take what I told you - I said when physicists speak about quantum information, they are usually talking about bits. Bits... that's just zero's and one's. Binary operations.

I don't know how anyone can say that statement is wrong. You look like you are just trying to cause a fight with someone who just cannot be bothered today. I have no intention discussing this further.

[ShinAce]

We also speak of how DNA is a way to encode information. DNA has more than two bits. Can you write Pi in bits?

[Aethelwulf]

If what you are trying to say, a bit is a unit of information, big deal!

Bits (notice the s here) are in physics terminology, the stuff physicists are talking about when they talk about quantum information. There is absolutely nothing wrong with my statement.

[Aethelwulf]

Maybe it's just me, but it seems to me that this discussion about whether binary is the best way of representing information detracts from the original intent of this thread,

The arguments I have found becoming of this place are often quite pitiful - some people try and detract what is an honest statement into a whole bunch of pedantic wish-wash! Recently I had some one tell me you can't have a universe as a set in set theory. I link them a paper to prove them wrong and they where hung up on the word ''causal'' still not realizing that the universe was still being represented as a set.

I wish I never said it wouldn't be surprising that a binary code could turn up in string theory, assuming string theory was the correct representation of reality, that binary codes is the most efficient codes there are. ... ... I don't know what possessed me. Since then, I have asked for a more efficient code, after a whole load of people side-tracking with definitions and whatnot, to not even being presented with a more efficient code. Now I am being hung up on some rubbish about ''units'' and getting muddled up which I am not. It's just another demonstration of someone going too far here.

[Jens]

The arguments I have found becoming of this place are often quite pitiful - some people try and detract what is an honest statement into a whole bunch of pedantic wish-wash!

That may be so, but at least from my point of view, you seem like one of the participants in those arguments, not an observer. Whenever somebody makes a comment about something you wrote, you have a choice to respond or not respond (well, except in ATM, I suppose), and I suppose it depends on how strong a need to show that you're right and others are wrong. I think you could choose to just keep discussing the (interesting) topic that you originally brought up.

[Aethelwulf]

That may be so, but at least from my point of view, you seem like one of the participants in those arguments, not an observer. Whenever somebody makes a comment about something you wrote, you have a choice to respond or not respond (well, except in ATM, I suppose), and I suppose it depends on how strong a need to show that you're right and others are wrong. I think you could choose to just keep discussing the (interesting) topic that you originally brought up.

It's easy for you to say thought I have a choice, but if I don't answer, then I am subject to be seen as ''giving up''.

[Aethelwulf]

I have every intention of discussing the topic at hand however.

[Selfsim]

Here is Gates' Physicsworld article … it might take a few reads in order to infuse what he's up to …

Regards

[Jens]

Here is Gates' Physicsworld article … it might take a few reads in order to infuse what he's up to …

Just out of curiosity, did you happen to come across post #6 in this thread?

[Selfsim]

Just out of curiosity, did you happen to come across post #6 in this thread?

Two "Oops's" in one thread eh ? A personal best !
(Apologies for the duplication)
I'll catch up eventually, I suppose !

Cheers

[Strange]

I know nothing of the science that he posted to. Just tell me what the most efficient code is then, then I will decide whether it is simplest. I thought he argued that in physics simplest and most efficient always mean different things, which I corrected, not in the Least Action Principle.

So, again, clear and decisively what is the most efficient code we know about?

I will try to comment on this and also bring it back to the original subject.

The code used depends on the metric you use for efficiency. Take data communication over a serial bus, as an example. You can have a 1 to 1 mapping from the binary encoding to the way the data is transmitted (i.e. a high voltage represented a 1 and a low voltage indicated a 0). This is efficient in the sense of simple implementation.

However there are some problems with this: how do you differentiate a long sequence of zeroes from a broken connection, how do you handle errors caused by noise, etc. So it is not the most efficient in terms of data reliability (or even overall bandwidth if you have to resend the message). So various things can be added: non-return-to-zero encoding, error detection (initially just parity over each byte), etc. This is less "efficient" in terms of implementation but more efficient in reliability.

But then you find that data communication speed is limited by the low quality telephone wires you are sending over. So you can do things like encode more than one data bit in each transmitted bit by using various modulation schemes (FSK, QPSK, etc). This allowed old dial-up modems to transmit 14.4kbps over a 2400 baud line. Much more efficient (in terms of data rate) but much less efficient (in terms of implementation complexity).

So, simplicity doesn't necessarily equal efficiency: it depends on the metric you use for each.

To relate this to the OP, a simple approach to labelling a binary tree is to label the branches at each level with a 0 or 1 then, as your traverse the tree, you build up a list of binary digits addressing each node. This can be extended to a ternary tree by using two bits to label each branch. You still end up with a binary string representing each node. The same approach can be used to label nodes in a graph (which appears to be what the article is about - I haven't been able to watch the videos yet). The article seems to conflate this labelling in binary with computer codes (because we all know they use binary).

But you could equally well have used the labels [0,1,2] or [a,b,c] to label the branches. This would then be more efficient (using shorter strings to label each node). The nodes would then have labels like "021" or "cba" and no one would say, "oh, look computer codes".

So (again) it looks like the claim of "computer codes" is just an example of apophenia.

[Strange]

Just out of curiosity, did you happen to come across post #6 in this thread?

I managed to miss that. So thanks to both of you.

Have only skimmed it so far but it looks like someone took the "universe as computer" metaphor a bit too literally. Once upon a time, the analogy was a clockwork machine, as that was the cutting-edge technology. Then it was a computer. Next, I expect people to compare the universe and/or quantum mechanics to DNA...

However, the fact that the math underlying everything appears to be based on symmetry is fascinating (and possibly meaningful). But it can be taken too far (e.g. Garret Lisi's An Exceptionally Simple Theory of Everything, which appears to be exceptionally simple but wrong).

[ShinAce]

Dna is actually a good comparison. Sounds like dr gates is saying that error correction exists within the 'equations'. Dna also has error correction built into its function. It can recognize a bad bit and fix it.

For me, the major questions are why this type of error correction and what predictions can we extract from that?

[Exposed]

I thought.. neh.. I can't leave it there.. he obviously doesn't know or realize that physicists really talk about bits.

So I went to youtube to find a video just for you to learn from. This is about quantum information... This lecture is in fact presented by the prestigious Leonard Susskind. You will soon realize, that it talks about zero's and one's, and if you know anything about information theory, which you obviously aren't aware of what it means in physics, this is about ''bits''.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Eeuq...feature=relmfu

enjoy

I am not a cosmologist or any kind of mathamatical genious, but I do have a strong computer engineering background to know your statement "Binary Codes are the most efficient way to represent information." is ABSOLUTELY WRONG.

None of your posted references even support your claim that binary is the simplest and most efficient way to represent information, you're just forcing your own flawed opinions via selective, twisted quotes out of context. And some of your ad hoc reasonings are flat out wrong or severely misconscrued, like your reference to information theory to "support" your opinion.

Cjameshuff was kind enough to provide a wealth of information and real world examples of how binary, though simple, is far from the most efficient method to represent information. It doesn't exist in nature (see DNA evidence), it doesn't exist in chemistry (see chemical bonding properties), it doesn't even exist in true quantum computing which by default is base 3 (state a, state b, state A AND B).

I wouldn't even call our everyday use of binary "simple", I would call it "practical". Representing a single frame of information on a computer display requires literally thousands of redundant binary data, 8 bits to compose a single byte, and will only increase exponentially in the future. This is a colossal waste of efficiency. Base 10 / base 12 easily condenses this inefficient data, however there is no known way to map this in a practical, physical manner as of right now. Computer hardware is built to read an on/off state which is done via electrical closed/open loops. This fits base 2 (binary) perfectly. Is it the most efficient? NOT by a long shot. Future computing will not be done via electricity (see research into holographic processors) and therefore not be limited to base 2.

You have been presented with overwhelming evidence countering your stance on binary simplicity and efficiency. Please be objective and soak up the information rather than dismiss it completely like you have done so far with BB and string theory.

[Aethelwulf]

None of your posted references even support your claim that binary is the simplest and most efficient way to represent information.

Start reading what is being said; That link was not to enforce any opinion of mine involving bits as being the most efficient information. That link was to support the notion that when physicists speak of quantum information they are actually speaking about bits.

Now... I have asked over and over again, whether anyone can tell me what the most efficient code is. All I ask is that people actually read posts and see what they are replying to. Don't jump to assumptions and then hit out with superfluous accusations!

Ok?

[pzkpfw]

Start reading what is being said; That link was not to enforce any opinion of mine involving bits as being the most efficient information. That link was to support the notion that when physicists speak of quantum information they are actually speaking about bits.

Now... I have asked over and over again, whether anyone can tell me what the most efficient code is. All I ask is that people actually read posts and see what they are replying to. Don't jump to assumptions and then hit out with superfluous accusations!

Ok?

You can drop the attitude, Aethelwulf. I've read through this thread again, and what I see is you making a fairly bold claim in a vague post, being called on it, then doing a lot of evasion and providing further "answers" with more vague half-explanations. The reactions of members to your posts have generally been polite and detailed (and reasonable interpretations of what you wrote). You should react in the same way.

[Aethelwulf]

I am not a cosmologist or any kind of mathamatical genious, but I do have a strong computer engineering background to know your statement "Binary Codes are the most efficient way to represent information." is ABSOLUTELY WRONG.

None of your posted references even support your claim that binary is the simplest and most efficient way to represent information, you're just forcing your own flawed opinions via selective, twisted quotes out of context. And some of your ad hoc reasonings are flat out wrong or severely misconscrued, like your reference to information theory to "support" your opinion.

Cjameshuff was kind enough to provide a wealth of information and real world examples of how binary, though simple, is far from the most efficient method to represent information. It doesn't exist in nature (see DNA evidence), it doesn't exist in chemistry (see chemical bonding properties), it doesn't even exist in true quantum computing which by default is base 3 (state a, state b, state A AND B).

I wouldn't even call our everyday use of binary "simple", I would call it "practical". Representing a single frame of information on a computer display requires literally thousands of redundant binary data, 8 bits to compose a single byte, and will only increase exponentially in the future. This is a colossal waste of efficiency. Base 10 / base 12 easily condenses this inefficient data, however there is no known way to map this in a practical, physical manner as of right now. Computer hardware is built to read an on/off state which is done via electrical closed/open loops. This fits base 2 (binary) perfectly. Is it the most efficient? NOT by a long shot. Future computing will not be done via electricity (see research into holographic processors) and therefore not be limited to base 2.

You have been presented with overwhelming evidence countering your stance on binary simplicity and efficiency. Please be objective and soak up the information rather than dismiss it completely like you have done so far with BB and string theory.

Oh and sir, I replied like I did, because you did not read carefully, and because you hit out with the attitude thus:

'' you're just forcing your own flawed opinions via selective, twisted quotes out of context. And some of your ad hoc reasonings are flat out wrong or severely misconscrued, like your reference to information theory to "support" your opinion.''

I don't find this approach polite, saying I have twisted anything. The first time I mentioned the efficiency of binary operations, I never mentioned it again. So how anyone could say I have twisted further things is not clear. What is clear, is that you read a simple line I stated to someone else and twisted it your own way. As you will see, I heavily defended another position. Nothing is vague about it.

[Aethelwulf]

And to prove this was far from vague exposed:

Originally Posted by Aethelwulf
When I say information, I mean Information Theory (and in physics) that is the study of bits.

Cjames


No, it is not. Information theory is applied mathematics relating to quantifying information.


Aethelwulf

I thought.. neh.. I can't leave it there.. he obviously doesn't know or realize that physicists really talk about bits.

So I went to youtube to find a video just for you to learn from. This is about quantum information... This lecture is in fact presented by the prestigious Leonard Susskind. You will soon realize, that it talks about zero's and one's, and if you know anything about information theory, which you obviously aren't aware of what it means in physics, this is about ''bits''.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Eeuq...feature=relmfu

enjoy

[cjameshuff]

And to prove this was far from vague exposed:

This proves only that you'll engage in ridiculously selective quoting as a debate technique. My full post remains where it was, right here. Earlier posts containing counterexamples to your claims are here and here. Once again, the bit is a unit of information. It happens to be one of particularly widespread use because we use binary computers. Your claim that "binary is most efficient" is a simplistic view that has been demonstrated to be incorrect, and pretending my examples and arguments don't exist does not change that.


As for the actual thread subject, forward error correction fundamentally comes down to redundant representation and spreading of information over time, space, or other distinguishable characteristics involved in the representation. The symbols are in a sense "delocalized" within the signal, so changing one small part of the signal can decrease signal to noise for a symbol (or multiple symbols) without corrupting any. Direct-sequence spread spectrum communications spread individual symbols over many "chips" that are modified with a pseudorandom spreading code, correlations between those chips and knowledge of the spreading code allowing the original data to be recovered even when several chips are incorrectly received due to interference.

It's all built on a lot of probability, group theory, etc. Like I said, it's not really surprising that you can find parallels with physics.

[NEOWatcher]

That link was to support the notion that when physicists speak of quantum information they are actually speaking about bits.

(yes, I know you are suspended, but for everyone involved...)

When physicists speak of quantum information and "bits" they are not talking about binary bits.
A quantum bit is something different and does not equate directly in the binary world. A quantum bit can have both states at the same time.

I suggest looking at the complexity of the Qubit on Wiki.

[Aethelwulf]

(yes, I know you are suspended, but for everyone involved...)

When physicists speak of quantum information and "bits" they are not talking about binary bits.
A quantum bit is something different and does not equate directly in the binary world. A quantum bit can have both states at the same time.

I suggest looking at the complexity of the Qubit on Wiki.

I am 100 percent aware of this. This is what happens when you have the principle of superpositioning.

In fact, I said this early on in this thread, so what we have here is a second case of someone not following what is written.