Draft:Jibit
| Submission declined on 1 July 2024 by SafariScribe (talk). This submission reads more like an essay than an encyclopedia article. Submissions should summarise information in secondary, reliable sources and not contain opinions or original research. Please write about the topic from a neutral point of view in an encyclopedic manner.
Where to get help
How to improve a draft
You can also browse Wikipedia:Featured articles and Wikipedia:Good articles to find examples of Wikipedia's best writing on topics similar to your proposed article. Improving your odds of a speedy review To improve your odds of a faster review, tag your draft with relevant WikiProject tags using the button below. This will let reviewers know a new draft has been submitted in their area of interest. For instance, if you wrote about a female astronomer, you would want to add the Biography, Astronomy, and Women scientists tags. Editor resources
|  |
Introduction The jibit, coined by Alfred Jibet in 1917, is any object that produce a bit of Shannon information.
Examples The telegraph typer, as a source of information, produces a bit, and is therefore a jibit. If I wish to talk in morse code, I might use a jibit. But if I wish to talk about a set of four words, I might employ 2 jibits, which are distinguishable by nature, and produce the following configurations (xx,xy,yx,yy) thus one configuration per word. If however, medium depending, if a bit is indistinguishable from the jibit that produces it, as with 2 telegraph typers, then they produce a sum of 3 bits, as XY is indistinguishable from YX. Even a paddle striking a liquid medium might be considered a jibit, 2 or 3 paddles produces waves either a) simultaneously b) by either jibit or c) not at all (no waves). If I have 2 indistinguishable jibits, I might talk in morse code, but since the jibits are indistinguishable, you cannot discern which jibit made a given bit. This is called jibit encoding, that for instance, 2 telegraph typers can both "talk" in morse code. It is a matter of form and debate what precisely in nature is considered a jibit.
Encoding
If I wish by some random jibit (flipping a coin) or by determination to encode the set of words in the english dictionary into binary strings, one binary string for each word, then I can encode english sentence with morse code, and can communicate an english sentence using one or more jibits, whether distinguishable or not. Human communication is jibit-like, where the communicators (a generalization of a jibit) are distinguishable, as Alice from Bob from Cal, as when they communicate, I can discern "who" communicated "what" on perception. The same principle applies to chess games, that I might use N binary strings to represent N valid chess configurations. However, to communicate a set of N things, I need log2(N) jibits. For instance, one jibit, in a technical sense, communicates 2 things (up or down, yin or yang, etc). But 2 jibits, which are distinguishable, communicate 4 things. Thus for N things, such as N chess configurations, I need log2(N) distinguishable jibits, and far more indistinguishable jibits.
References
[edit]- Shannon, C. E., & Weaver, W. (1949). The mathematical theory of communication. University of Illinois Press.