 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| • |
1.
RSVP yes or no?
|
|
|
When you reply, you reduce my uncertainty
by 1/2, requires only 1 bit
|
|
|
to
achieve—the minimal amount of information
|
|
|
2. A
32 icon language.
|
|
|
When the destination receives/selects
one, the uncertainty is reduced
|
|
|
by
31/32, requires 5 bits (log322=5), five times as much
information as
|
|
|
the
RSVP. So, selecting (or giving a
command) a single character/icon
|
|
in a
32 language reduces uncertainty (provides more information) than
|
|
|
selecting
a character in a 2 character language.
|
|
|
Assumes
independence of each ‘choice’
|
|
|
For
more typical settings, conditional probability arises (e.g., if the
|
|
|
receiver
has received a ‘Q’ in and English word message, the next
|
|
|
letter
carries 0 information since it does not reduce any uncertainty (we
|
|
are
sure it will be an ‘U.’ This gives
rise to coding theory.
|
|