On 16/07/2015, Theo Verelst <theo...@theover.org> wrote: > Nonono, you don't "get it", but I suppose only academics should try to > do a proper universal theory application attempt, I won't respond to > this anymore. I do suggest that if you'd take your own impulses and > encode them with you own algorithms you would find less interesting and > far less poetic information decay than you seem to suggest. I mean the > diminishing values of your own elasticity coefficients are worrying and > one sided.
"poetic information decay", "elasticity coefficient"... how are these terms relevant here at all? I thought the term "poetic" is only used in literature classes, and not statistics classes. Throwing around non-relevant terms doesn't make it sound more academic. I think you still don't understand that I was not trying to do a "proper universal theory" or "information theory poetry", rather, just did some statistical tests on some test data. I merely said "this particular formula, when applied to this data set, gives these results". Without any generalization or universal theory attempt. > there are > different formulas at play ( P(AuB)=P(A)+P(B)-P(A&B) kind of thing, for > those fortunate enough to have received education at the required level, Congratulations, you can recall a formula from your statistics class. -P -- dupswapdrop -- the music-dsp mailing list and website: subscription info, FAQ, source code archive, list archive, book reviews, dsp links http://music.columbia.edu/cmc/music-dsp http://music.columbia.edu/mailman/listinfo/music-dsp
