neutrino86

Hello...I need some reference sites to "Smart antenna array technology"...I tried googling, but i just need a litlle bit more help in narrowing down my search... Thanks in advance.

HI..I need some reference sites towards some of the basic coding algorithms, viz. the Huffman and arithmetic coding techniques. Thanks in advance

to be brief about the solution to this food scarcity problem faced by the ones below the poverty line...at first i believe there is enough food for everyone.its just the distribution networks are tainted by corruption...anyways if my belief is led to be false, then and anyway, i believe we must develop the agro sectors of the third world. this includes cutting tariffs and producing ration facilities to the various levels of the agro based societies based on magnitude of gross income, land possession, land fertility etc.these are things which any serious government can do whithout loss of adequate transparency. one thing which irks me alot is that in countries like india, where the most of the population derives its essential income from agriculture, the government does least about developing it...at 6-8% growth rate and climbing, one can imagine what a fully developed agro based nation like india can attain as a growth rate....this and the fact that many of the mnc's are investing in indias booming IT sector more than the easily more potent agro sector is astounding...perhaps its time to look at these scenarios more seriously...

kylonicus Your idea as well intended as it may seem, seems to be a bit thick when it comes to letting nature take its course on a population that seems to be suffering from malnurishment...adaptation and evolution have made these people strong and immune to most diseases and other forms of suffering. malnurishment does not give them a reason to want to die out. no one has a right to judge whether they should die or live except god/nature. actually these people are more deseving to live than the most of us because of their adaptation to so many forms of diseases and allergens...their progeny are obviously stronger than what we can produce. look at the physique of a healthy african man/ woman....and most of them live in unimaginable poverty, drought like conditions and disease pronedness. wiping them out would be comiting an act of extinction of a very strong gene pool....and with the hight of genetic engineering coming closer and closer, it would be more productive to study their gene pool for enhancements in immunology. one more thing...i say this out of my own experience because i live in india, a country in which 70% of its population is agro based, and due to several unjustifiable shortcomings many of this sector is a little too underdeveloped than it should be. of these people 50 or so % live below the poverty line.except in few certain cases, when one observes these people, though they struggle to get a single square meal a day, one can obtain an honest smile or giggle from them easier than from that of a newyorker...they are happy..they are happy because their wants are much lesser than ours. it would only be an act of imagination to say they are not happy because the person quoting as such would mostly be putting himself in their position and "feeling " their pain...its not being very honest.

Hello everybody. I am at present studying the Intel 8086 architecture, and find myself in need of an 8086 simulator. I would at most prefer the TASM series. I tried googling for it( the TASM versions that is) but I get payware(I would like a free-download version). Perhaps one of you could help me and let me know of any site available for downloading, in particluar the TASM simulator, or other free-ware 8086 simulators. Thank you

Mr. Grime. Wouldnt you call a stream of numbers random in nature if you were to find no corelation between their appearances and the real number line? By an inverse operation I meant the inverse of the operations done to get the "random numbers" in a similar fashion to the example i had cited. I donot feel its looseness, even though i find myself incapable to define randomness with the amount of rigour that could remove a frown on a mathematicians face. Since Mr Bascule has enlightened me on a few terms, i shall cite another example highlighting why i doubt anything is random in our world. This is a sentence from http://www.robertnz.net/true_rng.html. "A hardware (true) random number generator is a piece of electronics that plugs into a computer and produces genuine random numbers as opposed to the pseudo-random numbers that are produced by a computer program such as newran. The usual method is to amplify noise generated by a resistor (Johnson noise) or a semi-conductor diode and feed this to a comparator or Schmitt trigger. If you sample the output (not too quickly) you (hope to) get a series of bits which are statistically independent. These can be assembled into bytes, integers or floating point numbers and then, if necessary, into random numbers from other distributions using methods such as those in newran. " let us now assume thst this true RNG has given us a stream of ten integer numbers, which is produced by having the noise generated by a resistor amplified, and so on as mentioned. But it should still be possible to formulate the "inverse operations" by ofcourse very very sensitive equipment(to mend the losses due to imperfect instrumentation), and an impossibly vast expanse of time and money(But i should belive that this is not the reason for its unpredictability!!), let alone the fact that the string may appear satisfactorily random to us. Well whatever it be, it should always be possible to predict the output as long as the number of operations done remains finite. Or can it? can there be a perfect RNG? I hope I have made myself clear on this.

Just to see if my notion of randomness is relatively correct, i ask, what is randomness? Is it possible to have perfectly random relations in a finite set. If that sounds uncomfortable, i iterate with modifications,... Is it possible to have a perfect random number generator. The question arised when in the middle of a conversation about the random generators in programming languages like c, i learnt that these generators generate the so called random numbers by carrying out a finite number of mathematical operations on some time varying variable like say the least significant Integer of the second indicator(For example, take the integer which indicates the seconds, take its cosine,take the first three digits, add two to it, take its logarithm,and so on for a finite number of steps.) But this isnt RANDOM is it?...we call it random just because the inverse operations would be very very difficult to complete, and is an approximation(i.e the degree of randomness or so, if i may use the term) we all are all happy with. So about a perfect random number generator? thanks in advance.

true...well said.

i see....very intricate nomenclature..

I am sorry for my naive venture, but to justify my reasoning, i read in some newscientist article about chaos systems being used to describe fluid motions, which by use of deterministics is profoundly difficult, so it said.

yes... i too believe that in places where abstractions are required to simulate real life phenomena, a more formal definition of probability is what is needed...viz in places where an inumerable number of variables set in, none of which can be neglected, for each one of them may have a strong hold on what the next thing that could happen....chaos theory i believe is the best example...& complex models of high atomic mass atoms, etc certainly cannot have a poor mathematician/physicist stuck with infinite trial experiments! I might not know what a " more formal definition" would look like, but i certainly feel that i could imagine what could be required...

I donot think that any finite number of trials results(in the case where random variables come in) in the probability of the particular event to occur, rather , it tends to the probability only when the governing equation(s) consisting the number of trials, have that particular variable tend to infinity...ie one can never experimentally observe a tendency of the probability function to tend to a real number. In some cases, the number of such equations could turn out to be terrifyingly large, and hence another definition of probability would be required.

THankyou sir...That very much clears off the fog.

During my schooling, i read from an elementary probability book that the probability of an event occuring in a sample space( i donot know if it was a countable set or whatever else is likely), is a number obtained by letting the no of trials tend to infinity and then drawing up a number of success/failure figure out of it, in the end obtaining the probability structure of an event. Well, now i read from apostol that during the course of formation of games-of-chance theory, and thereafter probabilty/measure theory, many mathematicians had suffered in coming up with a convincing(?) definition of probabilty.Now come to think of it I feel disturbingly uncomfortable with the definitions I have learnt so far, including the one Mr. Apostol makes in in his book Calculus as:- A set function P defined on a boolean algebra whose elements are subsets of a given finite set S, is said to be a probability measure if 1.P is finitely additive 2.P(X) >0 for all X in S. 3.P(S)=1. (and that to it pertains to finite sample spaces. let us just stick to that as much as possible.) All true no doubt, but I wish for some assistance in getting comfortable with the definition, and perhaps a few examples highlighting its possible symmetry with the previous definition of probabilty. And ofcourse any other notions of probability that exist are welcome, as I perhaps may need as many "comprehension crutches" as possible. Thanking you in advance.

hmmm...i'll think about it a bit... i am not in friends with dynamic programming right now. Thankyou for your effort.

Which also needs to be proved:-)...rigorously... I remember reading from Rudins Principles of Mathematical Analysis, a tricky inequality, which shows that between any 2 Rationals there can be infinitely many other rationals, by iterating the same inequality. The nice part of it was that it killed all limits intrusions. Unfortunately it avoids my memory... Perhaps one must just get down to it.

umm....In case any of you missed this thread...Here it is again... Given a single aircraft to start with, an airline company decides to start a contract based rent-a-plane business... Given the starting and ending time of the contract offered by the would be passengers, and the cost they are willing to bear, develop an algorithm to decide which contracts to take, keeping in mind, that the highest amount of profit is to be developed. The contracts can be contiguous in their periods. The number of contracts which can be given as input can be upto 100000 in number. So time is a constraint with the algorithm. please share your ideas...

I have no clue on how to do this, besides the use of a brute force algo. Given a single aircraft to start with, an airline company decides to start a contract based rent-a-plane business... Given the starting and ending time of the contract offered by the would be passengers, and the cost they are willing to bear, develop an algorithm to decide which contracts to take, keeping in mind, that the highest amount of profit is to be developed. The contracts can be contiguous in their periods. The number of contracts which can be given as input can be upto 100000 in number. So time is a constraint with the algorithm. Please share your ideas.

Hello. I am in need for references(i.e websites) to electronics related fields, like micro controllers, IC constructs, analogue & digital designs, VHDL, etc. Please suggest some websites/forums which has a lot of activity in electronics and the related. Thankyou.

thank you

I donot understand how, under 'idealised conditions', it can be viewed to have a mass.I thought it is supposed to have mass all the time:-)as long as it is a hole. But in the atom model, as electron jumps from its orbital in the valence band to some other position, which may be in the conduction or in the valence band itself, the emptiness in the orbital is given a mass, even though the emptiness is spread across the boundaries of the orbital, i.e its position isnt very deterministic, we still give the 'void', a point mass and charge. Should it not be, perhaps like, no electron=>no mass;no electron=> + charge since atom is neutral and maintains neutrality by maintaining a probabilistic positive charge within the boundaries of the given orbital? Perhaps treating it as a point mass/charge just helps in solving equations, without jeopardising other optimisations. Or am i wrong?Is it in reality still a point object? Please share your knowledge.

I understand that the motion of the void is analogous to that of a bubble in water, as in the void goes to place of previous occupation of the occupant of the void, so to say. But the fact that the void then deserves a mass, is still incomprehendible to me. Could you explain a bit more?

I once heard that in the process of formation of the void, some amount of energy is released, which in turm is converted to/treated as a mass...could you elucidate a bit on that please...

That's very nice. But I want to take it a little bit more seriously:-)... As a matter of fact, that very statement you made, seems to scare me a bit...how is it that a void is treated as a particle of mass, equivalent more or less, to that of an electron.