Bit-resolution decrease for internet

Jerry Avins wrote:
> Ben Pope wrote:
>> Not given the context.
>
> That's probably true, but I had given up trying to educate Radium, and
> so broadened the context.

Oh right.  Well I hadn't.

> What do you make of the statement that every
> bit added to a storage unit doubles its capacity.

Yeah, I'll go with that.

> If a five-bit word
> holds 32 items and a four-bit word only 16, isn't it true that the fifth
> bit is "worth" 16 items all by itself? :-)

No, all by itself would mean that it is not the 5th bit, but the first, and
therefore only worth one bit with the ability to classify 2 states.

>> Thats nice.  A bit is still only capable of 2 states.  A binary digit is
>> still capable of 2 states (0 and 1)
>
> Absolutely. but the notion of a bit isn't limited to the number of
> states it can have.

No, but it is governed by the number of states it can have, agreed?

> "Bit" is also used as a measure of capacity. Not all
> capacities are powers of two.

Not much of what you say is relevant to this argument.

>> A 3.5 digit meter is designed to display fractions.  It is used to
>> display a "1" (or nothing) in the most significant digit, this also must
>> be an integer since x.5 digit meters do not have the possiblity of point
>> (decimal or otherwise) to the left of the � digit.
>
> Not so. I once had a meter that could display one, zero, or blank in the
> MSD place. Zero was used when the decimal point was to the left of it on
> the lowest range.

If it can display a zero in the MSD, it's not an x.5 digit display, is it?

>> But he's not alone in being unable to grasp the fact that a bit has a
>> finite amount of storage, namely two states.  You seem to be struggling
>> also, mostly becuase you seem to have forgotten what we are talking
>> about.
>
> We agree about what a one-bit storage element can hold. We differ about
> what a bit, as a unit of capacity can signify. I claim that a count of
> bits (and more generally, digits of any base) can signify an information
> capacity, and an integer isn't requires in that service.

Fine but since when were we talking about capacity?

If we do wish to talk about capacity, then lets make it relevant:
"What is the capacity of of half of one bit?".

Or possibly more to the point, "What is the capacity of 1/88200 of a bit?"

I suggest your answers should be (to 5 sig. fig.):
2^� = 1.4142 states
2^(1/88200) = 1.0000 states

Can you use 1.41 states to classify something?  Whats a fraction of a state?

>> Yes, but you cannot implement it with a state register containing 3.585
>> bits can you?  You'd need 4.  So what you have to say still doesn't
>> demonstrate the possiblilty of fractional bits.  Merely your inability
>> to distinguish the mathematical domain from real life.
>
> I'm not claiming that fractional bits are physically possible. I'm
> trying to establish their usefulness as a measure of capacity.

Did you even read the original post?  We're arguing the use of a fraction of
a bit as a storage mechanism.

>> You're not even talking about the same thing as me, thats why.  It's an
>> example of something completely different.
>
> Yes. I'm sorry.
>
> The moral of this story is, never say "never" Above all, never give
> advice. Well, no. What I was really getting at, even if obliquely, is
> that there are often oblique ways to look at things things that open
> many categorical statements to question.

As I was progressing down the thread I was assuming prior knowledge of the
previous posts, they give context.

Well done for ignoring the context and arguing a different point.

Perhaps the moral of the story is not to bother arguing with somebody who
either cannot or does not maintain a train of thought.

Ben
-- 
I'm not just a number. To many, I'm known as a String...

Jerry Avins <jya@ieee.org> wrote in message news:<3fdca5a3$0$14955$61fed72c@news.rcn.com>...
> Radium wrote:
> 
> > 44100 X 16 X 2 = 1,441,200
> > 
> > 44100 X 1/88200 X 2 = 1
> 
> I assume that you mean 1/88200 to represent "bit resolution". 

Correct.

"Ben Pope" <spam@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<brhksr$38v4i$1@ID-191149.news.uni-berlin.de>...
> glen herrmannsfeldt wrote:
> > Ben Pope wrote:
> >
> >> Radium wrote:
> >>
> >>> 44100 X 16 X 2 = 1,441,200
> >>>
> >>> 44100 X 1/88200 X 2 = 1
> >>
> >>
> >> Why won't you respond to my postings asking you how you intend to
> >> represent and use fractional bits?
> >
> > What is wrong with fractional bits?  A decimal digit is worth 3.3 bits.
> 
> Implementation is a fairly large problem.  I'm fairly sure a transistor is
> either logically "off" or logically "on".  

Transistor can only be "on" or "off". However, regions on a magnetic
disc do not need to be, and neither do tranmission wires carrying
info.

Radium wrote:
> Transistor can only be "on" or "off". However, regions on a magnetic
> disc do not need to be,

So along with your CoDec (which is clearly impossible because compression
has been around for a long time, is well understood and has been proven that
you cannot compress a signal with arbitrary compression ratio without
significant loss of detail - ever heard of entropy?) you're suggesting an
analogue storage medium?

Impement the bloody codec and sell it, you'll be rich.  Go and patent it now
before you lose your chance.

Ben
-- 
A7N8X FAQ: www.ben.pope.name/a7n8x_faq.html
Questions by email will likely be ignored, please use the newsgroups.
I'm not just a number. To many, I'm known as a String...

"Ben Pope" <spam@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<brimdl$3h6ap$1@ID-191149.news.uni-berlin.de>...
> Jerry Avins wrote:
> > Ben Pope wrote:

<big snip>

> Well done for ignoring the context and arguing a different point.
> 
> Perhaps the moral of the story is not to bother arguing with somebody who
> either cannot or does not maintain a train of thought.
> 
> Ben

If Oscar Wilde didn't say,
"Don't argue with a fool, people can't always tell the difference,'
he SHOULD have.

Ken

Ben Pope wrote:

> Radium, how to you intend to represent a whole second of audio, with one
> bit?  Thats two states - great for classifyng your audio into "this" or

Something like: there is music - there is no music.

Simple, isn't?

bye,

-- 
   Piergiorgio Sartor

Ben Pope wrote:

> Jerry Avins wrote:
> 
>>Ben Pope wrote:

   ...

>>What do you make of the statement that every
>>bit added to a storage unit doubles its capacity.
> 
> 
> Yeah, I'll go with that.
> 
> 
>>If a five-bit word
>>holds 32 items and a four-bit word only 16, isn't it true that the fifth
>>bit is "worth" 16 items all by itself? :-)
> 
> 
> No, all by itself would mean that it is not the 5th bit, but the first, and
> therefore only worth one bit with the ability to classify 2 states.

   ...

>>"Bit" is also used as a measure of capacity. Not all
>>capacities are powers of two.
> 
> Not much of what you say is relevant to this argument.

I thought the scope had broadened. We can just stop if it hasn't.

>>>A 3.5 digit meter is designed to display fractions.  It is used to
>>>display a "1" (or nothing) in the most significant digit, this also must
>>>be an integer since x.5 digit meters do not have the possiblity of point
>>>(decimal or otherwise) to the left of the � digit.
>>
>>Not so. I once had a meter that could display one, zero, or blank in the
>>MSD place. Zero was used when the decimal point was to the left of it on
>>the lowest range.
> 
> 
> If it can display a zero in the MSD, it's not an x.5 digit display, is it?

I call a display with three digits than can have any value and one that
can be blank, zero, or one a 3�-digit display by convention. (For true
3� digits, the MSD should range up to 3.) The lowest range of that meter
went from .0001 to .1999, so more the MSD had to display than a 1 or
blank.

   ...

> Fine but since when were we talking about capacity?
> 
> If we do wish to talk about capacity, then lets make it relevant:
> "What is the capacity of of half of one bit?".

We already agreed that adding a bit multiplies capacity by 2. Adding
half a bit multiplies capacity by sqrt(2).

> Or possibly more to the point, "What is the capacity of 1/88200 of a bit?"

What is the capacity of a nitwit like Radium to be guided? Let's see:
2^-88200 = 1.00000786, for what it's worth.

> I suggest your answers should be (to 5 sig. fig.):
> 2^� = 1.4142 states

Right on!

> 2^(1/88200) = 1.0000 states

To five significant figures, yes. (See above.) Except, of course, that
"states" is a relatively loose measure of capacity. As always, we must
either round down the capacity or round up the number of bits to the
next integer.

> Can you use 1.41 states to classify something?  What's a fraction of a state?

That depends on what you mean by classify. I can certainly use it to
categorize something.

   ...

>>I'm not claiming that fractional bits are physically possible. I'm
>>trying to establish their usefulness as a measure of capacity.
> 
> Did you even read the original post?  We're arguing the use of a fraction of
> a bit as a storage mechanism.

I thought we moved on from that drivel to something a bit more
interesting. Even that's been used up.

>>>You're not even talking about the same thing as me, thats why.  It's an
>>>example of something completely different.
>>
>>Yes. I'm sorry.
>>
>>The moral of this story is, never say "never" Above all, never give
>>advice. Well, no. What I was really getting at, even if obliquely, is
>>that there are often oblique ways to look at things things that open
>>many categorical statements to question.
> 
> 
> As I was progressing down the thread I was assuming prior knowledge of the
> previous posts, they give context.
> 
> Well done for ignoring the context and arguing a different point.
> 
> Perhaps the moral of the story is not to bother arguing with somebody who
> either cannot or does not maintain a train of thought.

OK. I keep responding out of a sense of obligation. I'm as tired if this
as you seem to be. Let's stop. I could feel churlish not to answer your
points except by prior agreement. Be assured that you can ignore this
without offending me.

Jerry
-- 
Engineering is the art of making what you want from things you can get.
�����������������������������������������������������������������������

When you divided by (b + c - a), you divided by zero since:
a = b + c
0 = b + c - a

Hence, the apparent paradox.

"Paul Russell" <prussell@sonic.net> wrote in message
news:pSTCb.2700$XF6.60967@typhoon.sonic.net...
> Radium wrote:
> > 44100 X 16 X 2 = 1,441,200
> >
> > 44100 X 1/88200 X 2 = 1
> >
>
>    a = b + c   ... (1)
>
>   5a = 5b + 5c ... (2)
>
>   4b + 4c = 4a ... (3)
>
> Add (2) and (3):
>
>   5a + 4b + 4c = 4a + 5b + 5c ... (4)
>
> Subtract 9a:
>
>   -4a + 4b + 4c = -5a + 5b + 5c ... (5)
>
> Simplify:
>
>    4(b + c - a) = 5(b + c - a) ... (6)
>
> Divide by (b + c - a):
>
>    4 = 5 ... (7)
>
> Paul
>

Jon Harris wrote:
> When you divided by (b + c - a), you divided by zero since:
> a = b + c
> 0 = b + c - a
> 
> Hence, the apparent paradox.
> 

Quite. I thought it might be instructive for our radioactive novice  though.

Paul

> < ...snip.. >
> > Hence, the apparent paradox.
> >
>
> Quite. I thought it might be instructive for our radioactive novice  though.
>
> Paul

I might guess there are novice errors in definition that confound [his]
dimensional
analysis or maybe he's bucking for a job with Bose.

Ron Capik        <<<  cynic in training  >>>
--