Epstein Secrets

Chaotic Dynamics; An Introduction. Cambridge University Press. Cambridge Bassingthwaighte, J., Liebovitch, L., West, B. (1994) Fractal Physiology. Oxford University Press. Oxford. Bayne,W.F., Hwang, S.S. (1985) Effect of nonlinear protein binding on equilibration times for different initial conditions. J Pharm Sci 74:

actals 3:893-904 Seneta, E. (1981) Non-negative Matrices and Markoff Chains. Springer-Verlag, New York. 286 HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_013786 Shannon, C.D., Weaver, W. (1949) The Mathematical Theory of Communication. University of Illinois Press, Urbana Sharkovskii, A.N. (1964): Coexistence of the cycles of a

We avoid the temptation to deal with the deep analogy between thermodynamic entropy (Clausius, 1897) and information theoretic entropy (Shannon and Weaver, 1949), constraining our discussion to the context of an operational equivalence (in healthy systems) between gain of information and 238 HOUSE_OV

space become symbolic dynamics in sequence space. It was Kolmogoroff (1958) who first applied Shannon’s ideas of entropy and information (Shannon and Weaver, 1949; Khinchin, 1957) to the quantification of these dynamical system’s telegraphic messages as discrete, “stochastic” (random, probabilistic) outp

ng precisely the tiny, residual “statistical differences among individuals.” 32 Matthew Amold, Culture and Anarchy, Jane Garnett, ed. (Oxford, U.K.: Oxford University Press, 2006). 112 HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_016915 To be sure, some recent achievements in artificial intelligence have been remarkably impressive. Computers can

n particular, information must not be confused with meaning.”?! Linguists and poets might be concerned about the “semantic” aspects of communication, Weaver continued, but not engineers like Shannon. Rather, “this word ‘information’ in communication theory relates not so much to what you do say, as to wha

es.” Information cannot be conserved—so far, so good. But did Wiener really have Shannon’s “information” in mind? The crux of Shannon’s argument, as Weaver had emphasized, was to distinguish a colloquial sense of “information,” as message with meaning, from an abstracted, rarefied notion of strings of sy

ng precisely the tiny, residual “statistical differences among individuals.” 32 Matthew Amold, Culture and Anarchy, Jane Garnett, ed. (Oxford, U.K.: Oxford University Press, 2006). 112 HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_016332 To be sure, some recent achievements in artificial intelligence have been remarkably impressive. Computers can

n particular, information must not be confused with meaning.”?! Linguists and poets might be concerned about the “semantic” aspects of communication, Weaver continued, but not engineers like Shannon. Rather, “this word ‘information’ in communication theory relates not so much to what you do say, as to wha

es.” Information cannot be conserved—so far, so good. But did Wiener really have Shannon’s “information” in mind? The crux of Shannon’s argument, as Weaver had emphasized, was to distinguish a colloquial sense of “information,” as message with meaning, from an abstracted, rarefied notion of strings of sy