Claude Elwood Shannon and Warren Weaver

Claude Shannon is known as the father of Information Theory. He was an American mathematician, electric engineer, and Cryptographer. His theory was a landmark, ‘mathematical theory of communication has been published in Bail system technical journal in 1948. Shannon was born (1862-1934) in the Petoskey, in the U.S.A state of Michigan. He has also created a magnetic mouse called  Theseus in 1950.

Warren Weaver was a mathematician and American scientist. He is best recognizes one of the pioneers of machine translation.

Introduction

This theory is known as engineering, a technical, mathematical model of communication. Many scientists had given this model a name called the mother of all the model because many time social scientist use this term to integrated different concepts such as a transmitter, signal, information source, signal, decoding, encoding, noise, and signal, etc.

In 1948 Shannon along with warren weaver presented ‘the theory of communication’ in Bail system technical journal.

Theory

In 1948 Shannon explained the process of telephonic communication through a model. This model has six elements – Source, Transmitter, Channel Receiver, and Destination. Here, noise one more elements are directly connected with the channel. In 1948 Shannon published a Mathematical theory of communication. In his work, Shannon used tools in Probability theory developed by Weaver. Shannon developed Entropy which measures the amount of uncertainty involved in the random process. For example, if we flip a coin it has two equally outcomes means less information whereas roll of a die ha six equal chance of outcomes.

Information theory studies information on communication and storage. It studies the transmission, processing, and uses of information. In this case communication stats from the information source to transmitter and from the transmitter it transfers on a different channel ( here channel is important to note because it contains noise which is also an element of this model.) through this channel receiver accept his message and it reaches to its destination finally.   

shannon

from the beginning, it is not connected with the noise but as it comes to the contact of the channel it interacts with the noise that makes this model more critical to understand. Here one thing is important to note Redundancy, which means repetition. Chances will increase to speak again and again the same thing if the noise is connected with the channel because it might make the receiver confused to understand the content of the source. This will also increase the time duration of the communication.

for example:  two people A and B are talking on the phone. A asked about studies to B over Phone. B replied to A about his competition of football. A asked him again the same question and he replied to him with the same answer and sometimes B asked A to repeat his words again. Eventually, the conclusion came out that there was a problem with the channel through which they both were connected. There must be a barrier (noise) presented in the channel (telephone) which interrupted their communication.

The best thing about Shannon and Weaver model of communication was noise (barrier). If the message that was sent to the destination was exact same then it would be called successful communication. but it is not possible due to the barrier (noise). The higher the barrier, the less successful the communication. the lower the barrier, the higher successful the communication would be.

The higher the probability of noise in communication, the greater the chances of Redundancy. Though, this allows a communication channel to transmit less its capacity because it increases the chances of repetition.

Theories main Concepts are :

  • Redundancy
  • Entropy
  • Noise
  • Channel capacity

8 thoughts on “Claude Elwood Shannon and Warren Weaver

  1. In this great pattern of things you actually secure an A with regard to effort. Exactly where you actually confused me was first in your facts. You know, they say, details make or break the argument.. And that could not be more accurate here. Having said that, let me inform you just what did work. The article (parts of it) is actually very engaging and that is most likely why I am making an effort to comment. I do not really make it a regular habit of doing that. Secondly, whilst I can notice the leaps in reason you come up with, I am not necessarily sure of how you appear to connect the ideas which make the actual final result. For now I will subscribe to your point however hope in the future you actually connect the dots better.

    Like

  2. I blog frequently and I seriously thank you for your content. Your article has really peaked my interest. I’m going to take a note of your site and keep checking for new information about once a week. I opted in for your RSS feed too.

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: