olli...@ukzn.ac.za>>
Date: Saturday, February 1, 2014 7:26 AM
To: Bob Logan mailto:lo...@physics.utoronto.ca>>
Cc: "fis@listas.unizar.es<mailto:fis@listas.unizar.es>"
mailto:fis@listas.unizar.es>>
Subject: Re: [Fis] The Interaction Man
Bob,
Sometimes ignored in the
Bob,
Sometimes ignored in the mathematics of Shannon's approach are the coding
and decoding steps, which he does not put in mathematical form, but
appear in his diagrams.
There has been some work in this area, the best of which I think to be
Information Flow by Barwise and Seligman. It is a diffi
Dear John - I agree with your distinction between information and
communication. What is essential for communication is the interpretation of the
information. If I cannot interpret the information there is no communication.
What Shannon leave out of his theory of signals (this is not a typo, I b
e with your approach to really understand Shannon.
Best,
Xiaohong
- Original Message -
From: John Collier
To: Krassimir Markov , "Pedro C. Marijuan"
, "fis@listas.unizar.es"
Subject: Re: [Fis] The Interaction Man
Date:
> I would agree with distinguishing between communication and
> information interaction, but I infer exactly the opposite conclusion.
> Communication, it seems to me (and also according to the setup that
> is the basis for Shannon's approach) requires coding and decoding
> modules, but information
At 12:38 AM 2013/12/05, Krassimir Markov wrote:
>Dear Pedro and FIS Colleagues,
>This discussion is full with interesting ideas.
>What I want to add is that I distinguish the concepts "communication" and
>"information interaction" which reflect similar phenomena but at different
>levels of live hie
Dear Pedro, Krassimir and all FIS members,
Recently, the ideas you are talking are increasingly interesting.
Here I like to response to Krassimir as follows:
What I want to add is that I distinguish the concepts "communication" and
"information interaction" which reflect similar phenomena but a
