Signal Information Content

Post Reply New Topic

Signal A: S*,6@L @τt▼· ☺>ö1%'⌡┐┌é ├♠1<⌐╬8 ♦♦É8♠╕╖µJ0 :87G↕≈┬|┐ⁿ⌡┼Z2░─♥741-9874Ö▌87465Φ87╤æÇé┼►DΩ

Signal B: asdfjkl;asdfjkl;asdfjkl;asdfjkl;asdfjkl;asdfjkl;asdfjkl;asdfjkl;asdfjkl;asdfjkl;asdfjkl;asdfjkl;asdfjkl;asdfjkl;asdfjkl;

Signal C: omnia flumina intrant mare et mare non redundat ad locum unde exeunt flumina revertuntur ut iterum fluant.



Which of these signals contains information?

Which ones contain order?

Which one is near completely random?

Last edited by iamnotaparakeet on 18 Dec 2009, 12:23 am, edited 2 times in total.

And who are we to dictate what contains order, information or what is random? Not everyone looks the same way at the same things :p Some people could think that C is completely random and that A contains information (i wouldn't quite be able to see what kind, but i'm sure "someone" out there could).

As an artist I frequently experiment by laying down color on a surface with no intent for order and I inevitably discover faces, figures, architecture, landscapes in this graphic procedure. My mind imposes information on these experiments and this is true for all sorts of communications.

This text was not written on purpose. Instead it is the result of typing randomly a quintillion times a second for a few decillion seconds. This is only a sample of the text. The rest is absolute garbage and would overload the server if submitted. Since this text was randomly generated and not intentionally written with thought behind it, it has no intended meaning. Either that, or the above statements are false and this was written on purpose over the space of a much smaller amount of time and there is intended meaning in these words.

All of these signals contain information. I would guess, knowing your posting style, that only the last one, C, is a language that can be translated into something human beings would enjoy. However, if you wanted to play a trick, you could make it so that none of these signals have any meaning that can be reasonably ascribed to them. It is possible that A contains the most meaning though, as it has the most complexity.

I would have to say that signal B is the most orderly. It has a very set pattern with no deviation. The next is C as it shows some patterns, but A seems to have limited patterns to it.

A seems most random, but I would think that none of them are truly random. A seems to be purposefully made "random" which is itself a sort of pattern. Usually random things are things we'll assign too much pattern to, and what we expect as random is often actually a pattern made to look random. It is weird, but yeah, unless you tell me that you created a random symbol generator, I will doubt the full randomness of A. (full randomness meaning that the set of symbols was created by a random symbol generator such as a program that used a random number generator) In any case, I think I see a pattern with the placement of numbers, and I doubt that the spacing power is random.

The term information was coined during the era that transatlantic phone cables were laid. It literally only means what it breaks down to. In formation. At the time they discovered noise that they couldnt account for.. this was cosmic radio waves.

So information is really a ratio of true signal to noise.. none of your three choices likely have any noise in them as both your keyboard and internet connection are shielded and error checked. Information has no meaning.. only a degree of order. It is only the interpretation of the formation that decides meaning. If the noise grows too high, no meaning can be taken.

Next, a person cannot create a truly random sequence(and nor can a computer), so none of them are random. Especially because of the limited character sets, all three samples are very periodic.

All of them.



All of them.



None of them.

I'll ask....
Which of them are meaningful?

The last one, but only if the reader knows latin.

That is an interesting little tidbit and shows some biblical wisdom. They knew the water cycled back from the ocean to the rivers source. It suggests that they didnt think it was magically created and destroyed.

Correct. C is the only one which contains thought, in the sense of language. Psychology could ascribe this that or the other, but C is composed in a language.


As for it being translated...

(AOV) Al die strome loop in die see, en tog word die see nie vol nie; na die plek waarheen die riviere loop, daarheen loop hulle altyd weer.

(BCN) Y mae'r holl nentydd yn rhedeg i'r môr, ond nid yw'r môr byth yn llenwi; y mae'r nentydd yn mynd yn ôl i'w tarddle, ac yna'n llifo allan eto.

(Bibeln) Alla floder rinna ut i havet, och ändå bliver havet aldrig fullt; där floderna förut hava runnit, dit rinna de ständigt åter.

(Bishops) All fluddes runne into the sea, and yet is the sea it selfe not fylled: For loke vnto what place the waters runne, thence they come to flowe agayne.

(BUL) Всичките реки се вливат в морето, И пак морето не се напълня; На мястото, дето отиват реките, Там те непрестанно (Еврейски: се връщат да.) отиват.

(CBK) Všecky řeky jdou do moře, a však se moře nepřeplňuje; do místa, do něhož tekou řeky, navracují se, aby zase odtud vycházely.

(ESV) All streams run to the sea, but the sea is not full; to the place where the streams flow, there they flow again.

(FDB) Toutes les rivières vont vers la mer, et la mer n'est pas remplie; au lieu où les rivières allaient, là elles vont de nouveau.

(FPR) Kaikki joet laskevat mereen, mutta meri ei siitänsä täyty; samaan paikkaan, johon joet ovat laskeneet, ne aina edelleen laskevat.

(Geneva) All the riuers goe into the sea, yet the sea is not full: for the riuers goe vnto ye place, whence they returne, and goe.

(GLB) Alle Wasser laufen ins Meer, doch wird das Meer nicht voller; an den Ort, da sie her fließen, fließen sie wieder hin.

(HKB) Minden folyóvíz siet a tengerbe; mindazáltal a tenger mégis meg nem telik: akármicsoda helyre a folyóvizek siessenek, ugyanazon helyre térnek vissza.

(HOT) כל־הנחלים הלכים אל־הים והים איננו מלא אל־מקום שׁהנחלים הלכים שׁם הם שׁבים ללכת׃

(HOT+) כלH3605 הנחליםH5158 הלכיםH1980 אלH413 היםH3220 והיםH3220 איננוH369 מלאH4392 אלH413 מקוםH4725 שׁהנחליםH5158 הלכיםH1980 שׁםH8033 הםH1992 שׁביםH7725 ללכת׃H1980

(ICE) Allar ár renna í sjóinn, en sjórinn verður aldrei fullur, þangað sem árnar renna, þangað halda þær ávallt áfram að renna.

(IRL) Tutti i fiumi corrono al mare, eppure il mare non s'empie; al luogo dove i fiumi si dirigono, tornano a dirigersi sempre.

(ITB) Semua sungai mengalir ke laut, tetapi laut tidak juga menjadi penuh; ke mana sungai mengalir, ke situ sungai mengalir selalu.

(KJV) All the rivers run into the sea; yet the sea is not full; unto the place from whence the rivers come, thither they return again.

(KJV+) AllH3605 the riversH5158 runH1980 intoH413 the sea;H3220 yet the seaH3220 is notH369 full;H4392 untoH413 the placeH4725 from whence the riversH7945 H5158 come,H1980 thitherH8033 theyH1992 returnH7725 again.H1980

(KJV-1611) All the riuers runne into the sea, yet the Sea is not full: vnto the place from whence the riuers come, thither they returne againe.

(KJVA) All the rivers run into the sea; yet the sea is not full; unto the place from whence the rivers come, thither they return again.

(Kougo) 川はみな、海に流れ入る、しかし海は満ちることがない。川はその出てきた所にまた帰って行く。

(KRV) 모든 강물은 다 바다로 흐르되 바다를 채우지 못하며 어느 곳으로 흐르든지 그리로 연하여 흐르느니라

(LXX) πάντες οἱ χείμαρροι, πορεύονται εἰς τὴν θάλασσαν, καὶ ἡ θάλασσα οὐκ ἔσται ἐμπιμπλαμένη· εἰς τόπον, οὗ οἱ χείμαρροι πορεύονται, ἐκεῖ αὐτοὶ ἐπιστρέφουσιν τοῦ πορευθῆναι.

(Norsk) Alle bekker løper ut i havet, men havet blir ikke fullt; til det sted som bekkene går til, dit går de alltid igjen.

(PBG) Wszystkie rzeki idą do morza, wszakże morze nie wylewa; do miejsca, z którego rzeki płyną, wracają się, aby zaś stamtąd wychodziły.

(RST) Все реки текут в море, но море не переполняется: к тому месту, откуда реки текут, они возвращаются, чтобы опять течь.

(So) Webiyaasha oo dhammu waxay ku shubmaan badda, oo weli badduna ma buuxsanto, oo webiyaashu meeshii ay ku socdaan ayay haddana ku sii socdaan.

(SRV) Los ríos todos van á la mar, y la mar no se hinche; al lugar de donde los ríos vinieron, allí tornan para correr de nuevo.

(SVD) كُلُّ الأَنْهَارِ تَجْرِي إِلَى الْبَحْرِ وَالْبَحْرُ لَيْسَ بِمَلآنَ. إِلَى الْمَكَانِ الَّذِي جَرَتْ مِنْهُ الأَنْهَارُ إِلَى هُنَاكَ تَذْهَبُ رَاجِعَةً.

(TKK) Bütün ırmaklar denize akar, Yine de deniz dolmaz. Irmaklar hep çıktıkları yere döner.

(Viet) Mọi sông đều đổ vào biển, song không hề làm đầy biển; nơi mà sông thường chảy vào, nó lại chảy về đó nữa.

(Vulgate) omnia flumina intrant mare et mare non redundat ad locum unde exeunt flumina revertuntur ut iterum fluant


Of these though, since they all contain the same message, do any of them have more information than the other?

If one of these is doubled, like this:

"All the rivers run into the sea; yet the sea is not full; unto the place from whence the rivers come, thither they return again. All the rivers run into the sea; yet the sea is not full; unto the place from whence the rivers come, thither they return again."

Does this have twice the information of this one:

"All the rivers run into the sea; yet the sea is not full; unto the place from whence the rivers come, thither they return again."?

Last edited by iamnotaparakeet on 18 Dec 2009, 2:12 am, edited 1 time in total.

I am not on information theory but somewhere I read that pure noise contains all possible information. It's the 50 million monkeys problem of extracting meaningful information and why I see pictures in random stains on a wall.

Last edited by Sand on 18 Dec 2009, 2:31 am, edited 1 time in total.

So, in-formation is related to the proportion of signal to noise? If there is a higher amount of noise as compared to intended signal, is information added at the receiver, lost at the receiver, or has there been no change to the amount of information received as compared to the message sent?

Let's say the intended signal is this,

"omnia flumina intrant mare et mare non redundat ad locum unde exeunt flumina revertuntur ut iterum fluant"

But what is received is not exactly that but instead,

"om--a flu-na -tran- -re et ma- -n redun- -d loc- -nd- -unt flum- -tuntur ut it- -ant"

Where the minus signs represent noise/static.

In this case, is information less, more, or the same at the receiver as it is at the transmitter?

It's not that no meaning can be taken from noise but that all possible meanings can be taken. The further you get away from precise restricted meaning the more other meanings can intrude.

Like finding your name in pi I suppose.

I guess it ties in with entropy. My first name is one character more than yours. So each letter of your name conveys 125% of the value of each letter of my name. Assuming both our names convey the same amount of meaningful data about the attached people.

Your name has better compression.

Then again, my name will take more disruption before it is completely changed or obliterated.

Finding your full name in pi would be more frequent too, as my last name is twice as long as yours. But my name is more error prone, and indeed, it has numerous variations on spelling.

I dont know much about information theory either. Its just that years ago I read about the etymology of 'information' and some interesting facts about it and data stuck with me.

I think your monkey analogy is simply that applying noise after a certain threshold is more likely to introduce order(of unexpected qualities). Fractals would be a good example.

Actually a name is more sensitive than the number of letters. The same letters shifted in order destroys a name. Just as a word shifted in a sentence can totally shift the information in a sentence. The oft quoted Groucho Marx remark " Time flies like an arrow, fruit flies like a banana" requires a subtle shift of understanding to maintain it's potency where the meaning of one word shifts mentally with no observable text shift.

Well, if we were talking about digital transmission, the noise/static would appear as aberrant characters rather than silence or unintelligible noise. But I think you imply that. I'm just being cautious.

As people we have neural circuitry to 'fill in the gaps', right? For a digital transmission what they do is a checksum. They have a complicated formula that is applied to all the data, resulting in a checksum number which is sent as well. The receiving computer check sums with the same formula and compares the two numbers. If they are different, it knows there is a problem and asks for a resend.

An example is when you are network gaming and your pings are high and the game is either screwing up or you have lag. Its taking too long to get valid data, or its working with bad stuff. If its bad enough, the checksum can be corrupt too. Mostly though, the chance of the checksum being disrupted is like getting shot in the dark. Not too likely.

People are like that too. you can drop or block a few characters/sounds and we gloss over it. Too much and it just becomes meaningless.

I am sure you have seen that joke where they have you read a message where all the words are correctly spaced, but their letter orders are screwed up? Its a good example that word length and spacing contributes a lot of information to our minds.

Good taste in humour.




I think we are saying the same thing, and this person is as well.

As per deciphering meaning and correcting errors, there are other functions which the mind employs as well.

Some things have to do with the types of errors possible with the method of communication. Such as, using a keyboard, it is possible to hit the mirror image key with the opposite hand from which you meant to. E.g. "I want to go camqing this summer." where the "q" was typed when the correct letter is "p". Or there is sequence errors, such as the=hte, is=si, etc. And then there is the danger of homophones. Whether this error is corrected or not and whether the intended meaning is conveyed is somewhat dependent upon the recognition of error and the most probable meaning in relation to context or to the personality of the author.

What is significant is that the mind encounters a continuous flood of information inlaid, twisted, overlaid, and so forth and it has filtering mechanisms to pull out what is significant and what can be discarded. The filtering mechanism is trained through experience as to what is meaningful and what is not but the difference depends very much on the individual and past experience.