Archive for the 'information theory' category

Information vs. Meaning

Sep 21 2009 Published by under information theory

If you regularly follow comments on this blog, you'll know that I've been
having a back-and-forth with a guy who doesn't know much about information
theory, and who's been using his ignorance to try to assemble arguments against the
Kolmogorov-Chaitin information-theoretic measure of information in a string.
In the course of doing that, I came up with what I think are some interesting ways
of explaining bits of it, so I thought I'd promote it to the top-level to share
with more readers.

To be absolutely clear up front: I'm far from an expert on K-C theory. It's something that I find incredibly fascinating, and I've read a lot of Chaitin's work. I've been fortunate enough to meet Greg Chaitin a bunch of times when we both worked at
IBM, and I've attended a bunch of his lectures. But this isn't my main area of expertise,
not by a long-shot.

If you don't know any K-C information theory, then you can look at my
introduction here. The rest is beneath the fold.

Continue Reading »

26 responses so far

Quick Critique: Dembski and Marks in IEEE Journal

Aug 20 2009 Published by under Debunking Creationism, information theory

As lots of you have heard, William Dembski and Robert Marks just had a
paper published in an IEEE journal
. In the last couple of days, I've received about 30
copies of the paper in my email with requests to analyze it.

My biggest criticism of the paper is how utterly dull it is. It's obvious
how they got it published - they removed anything that's really interesting from it. It's
a rehash of the stuff they've written before, stripped of any content that directly hints
at the anti-evolution part of their claims - which leaves a not-particularly-interesting
paper on search algorithms.

I'm not going to rehash my primary criticisms of Dembski's approach here - I've done it lots of times before, most recently in this post, which critiques a very closely related paper by D&M. In fact, this paper
is really just an edited version of the one I critiqued in that post: it's that paper with all of the intelligent-design speak removed.

Continue Reading »

81 responses so far

You can't write that number; in fact, you can't write most numbers.

May 15 2009 Published by under information theory, Numbers

In my Dembski rant, I used a metaphor involving the undescribable numbers. An interesting confusion came up in the comments about just what that meant. Instead of answering it with a comment, I decided that it justified a post of its own. It's a fascinating topic which is incredibly counter-intuitive. To me, it's one of the great examples of how utterly wrong our
intuitions can be.

Numbers are, obviously, very important. And so, over the ages, we've invented lots of notations that allow us to write those numbers down: the familiar arabic notation, roman numerals, fractions, decimals, continued fractions, algebraic series, etc. I could easily spend months on this blog just writing about different notations that we use to write numbers, and the benefits and weaknesses of each notation.

But the fact is, the vast, overwhelming majority of numbers cannot be written
down in any form
.

That statement seems bizarre at best. But it does actually make sense. But for it to
make sense, we have to start at the very beginning: What does it mean for a number to be describable?

Continue Reading »

94 responses so far

I Get Mail: Iterative Compression

Mar 08 2009 Published by under Bad Software, information theory

Like a lot of other bloggers, I often get annoying email from people. This week, I've been dealing with a particularly annoying jerk, who's been bothering me for multiple reasons. First, he wants me to "lay off" the Christians (because if I don't, God's gonna get me). Second, he wants to convince me to become a Christian. And third, he wants to sell me on his brilliant new compression scheme.

See, aside from the religious stuff, he's a technical visionary. He's invented a method where he can take a source document, and repeatedly compress it, making it smaller each time.

This is a stupid idea that I've seen entirely too many times. But instead of just making fun of it, I thought it would be interesting to explain in detail why it doesn't work. It touches on a bunch of basic facts about how data compression works, and provides a nice excuse for me to write a bit about compression.

basic-compression.png

The basic idea of data compression is that you're eliminating redundancies in the original text. You can't discard information. Mathematically, a compression function is an invertible function C from an array of characters to an array of characters (or you could use bits if you prefer), such that if y=C(x), then on the average input, the length of y is smaller than the length of x.

An ideal compression system is one where for all possible values of x, C(x) is shorter than x. C is your compressor; and since C is reversible, it has a unique inverse function C-1 such that C-1(C(x)) = x. An illustration of this basic compression system is in the diagram to the side.

Continue Reading »

27 responses so far

Fitness Landscapes, Evolution, and Smuggling Information

Dec 19 2008 Published by under information theory, Intelligent Design

Since my post a couple of weeks ago about NASA and the antenna evolution experiment,
I've been meaning to write a followup. In both comments and private emails, I've gotten
a number of interesting questions about the idea of fitness landscapes, and some of the things
I mentioned in brief throwaway comments. I'm finally finding the time to write about
it now.

Continue Reading »

25 responses so far

Why is randomness informative? Correcting the Clueless Creationists

Aug 18 2008 Published by under Debunking Creationism, information theory

Someone sent me some questions about information theory; or actually,
about some questions raised by a bozo creationist arguing about information
theory.
But the issues raised are interesting. So while I'm
nominally snarking at a clueless creationist, I'm really using it
as an excuse to talk about one of my favorite mathematical subjects.

The creationist is confused by the information theory idea of information and complexity. That is somewhat confusing.
Intuitively, we think of information in terms of semantics and communication. We think that information is related to semantic content. And our understanding of semantic content comes from language. So we expect
things that are rich in information to be highly structured, like language.

Continue Reading »

62 responses so far

A Glance at the Work of Dembski and Marks

Sep 17 2007 Published by under information theory, Intelligent Design

Both in comments, and via email, I've received numerous requests to take a look at
the work of Dembski and Marks, published through Professor Marks's website. The site is
called the "Evolutionary Informatics Laboratory". Before getting to the paper, it's worth
taking just a moment to understand its provenance - there's something deeply fishy about
the "laboratory" that published this work. It's not a lab - it's a website; it was funded
under very peculiar circumstances, and hired Dembski as a "post-doc", despite his being a full-time professor at a different university. Marks claims that his work for
the EIL is all done on his own time, and has nothing to do with his faculty position at the university. It's all quite bizarre. For details, see here.

On to the work. Marks and Dembski have submitted three papers. They're all
in a very similar vein (as one would expect for three papers written in a short period
of time by collaborators - there's nothing at all peculiar about the similarity). The
basic idea behind all of them is to look at search in the context of evolutionary
algorithms, and to analyze it using an information theoretic approach. I've
picked out the first one listed on their site: Conservation of Information in Search: Measuring the Cost of Success

Continue Reading »

178 responses so far

Fractal Dust and Noise

Jul 27 2007 Published by under Fractals, information theory

cantor-dust-tri.png

While reading Mandelbrot's text on fractals, I found something that surprised me: a relationship
between Shannon's information theory and fractals. Thinking about it a bit, it's not really that suprising;
in fact, it's more surprising that I've managed to read so much about information theory without
encountering the fractal nature of noise in a more than cursory way. But noise in a communication channel
is fractal - and relates to one of the earliest pathological fractal sets: Cantor's set, which Mandelbrot
elegantly terms "Cantor's dust". Since I find that a wonderfully description, almost poetic way of describing it, I'll adopt Mandelbrot's terminology.

Continue Reading »

45 responses so far

Not Quite Basics: Sorting Algorithms

Feb 28 2007 Published by under Basics, Computational Complexity, information theory

Multiple people have written to me, after seeing yesterday's algorithms basics post, asking me to say more about sorting algorithms. I have to say that it's not my favorite topic - sorting is one of those old bugaboos that you can't avoid, but which gets really dull after a while. But there is a kernel of interest to it - sorting can be used to demonstrate a lot of interesting ideas about
computational complexity.

Continue Reading »

52 responses so far

Once again, Sal and Friends Butcher Information Theory

I haven't taken a look at Uncommon Descent in a while; seeing the same nonsense
get endlessly rehashed, seeing anyone who dares to express disagreement with the
moderators get banned, well, it gets old. But then... Last week, DaveScott (which is, incidentally, a psueudonym!) decided to retaliate against my friend and fellow ScienceBlogger Orac, by "outing" him, and publishing his real name and employer.
Why? Because Orac had dared to criticize the way that a potential, untested
cancer treatment has been hyped recently
in numerous locations on the web, including UD.

While reading the message thread that led to DaveScott's "outing" of Orac, I came
across a claim by Sal Cordova about a new paper that shows how Greg Chaitin's work in
information theory demonstrates the impossibility of evolution. He even promoted it to
a top-level post on UD. I'm not going to provide a link to Sal's introduction
of this paper; I refuse to send any more links UDs way. But you can find the paper at
this
site
.

Continue Reading »

57 responses so far

Older posts »