Well it seems people think Gitt has Shannon all wrong.
quote:
Since Gitt has gotten Shannon backwards, his writing is completely scrambled and confused.
quote:
In this case, he directly contradicts Shannon's own theorem and writings! That is, Shannon used the fact that a disturbance decreases the information to prove his theorem!
quote:
Note that Gitt uses the word 'theorem' but does not give his axioms nor does he prove his theorems using axioms.
Sounds like Gitt likes to use fancy words but doesnt really know what they mean.
Source
So is he being "slandered" here too? Seems like the writer is pointing out glaring problems with Gitt's work
It's not they, it's him. Werener Gitt is one person.
The reason for the misunderstanding is your inability to cut and paste.
Percy writes:
I know that Spetner and Gitt claim that meaning is part of information theory, but their ideas have not had any influence at all within science. Their only audience is creationists. Their ideas are not underpinned by research and do not have any mathematical foundation.
what you posted as being said by Percy
I know that Werner and Gitt claim that meaning is part of information theory, but their ideas have not had any influence at all within science. Their only audience is creationists. Their ideas are not underpinned by research and do not have any mathematical foundation.
Hmm, so maybe you should realize that you are the one that f'd up.
As for Spetner read this from the preface of his book
Not by Chance. Shattering the Modern Theory of Evolution(New York: The Judaica Press, 1998).
quote:
"...I met the evolutionary theory in a serious way, and I found it hard to believe. It clashed not only with my religious views, but also with my intuition about how the information in living organisms could have developed."
Totally driven by religious motives.
Do you know what happens to fighter pilots when they rely on intuition? They die.
As for his information theories.
quote:
Spetner's attempt to substantiate his assertion that the amount of information is decreased by the described mutation because this mutation makes the ribosome less specific is itself unsubstantiated. The ribosome may become less specific in relation to streptomycin, but may become instead specific in relation to some other substance. Since information about such a possibility is absent, there is no reason to assert that the specificity in Spetner's sense has indeed dropped. Therefore Spetner's assertion that the mutation in question resulted in a decrease of information is pure speculation with no evidentiary value
Source
Author of the review is Mark Perakh professor emeritus of Mathematics and statistical mechanics at California State University, Fullerton in Fullerton, California.
Try this one too
http://home.wxs.nl/~gkorthof/kortho36.htm
I highly suggest you read these reviews. You might find what other scientists have to say about these two quite interesting.
Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts
™ Version 4.2