standOff, and the article is at its publisher via the link below. When we have changed our mind. Some entries in the table begin with a word in capitals and the reason for it. EVIDENCE CORRECTED — the finding still stands, but we had quoted the wrong sentence from the paper, and the quotation has been replaced with the right one. RETRACTED — the entry itself was wrong; it stays on the page, marked, with the reason, rather than being deleted. WITHDRAWN AND REPLACED — the entry was wrong, and a corrected version of it appears in the entries below. Each mark carries its own reason, in brackets, because the reasons differ from one entry to the next. An entry we have WITHDRAWN is removed from this page and kept in the record, with its reason. A line reading Audit and a date is a later re-reading of the entry against its whole sentence: DOUBTFUL means it was kept, and the reason says what is loose about it. Quotation marks inside the tagger's sentence. Where a tag is the tagger's own sentence, a phrase in quotation marks inside it is borrowed from the paper — the tagger's wording around it is not. The paper's own sentence is the evidence quote for that row; on this page it is withheld with the article, and the article is at its publisher. Nothing inside quotation marks anywhere on this page is ours: if it is quoted, it is the paper's. Whose words a concept carries. A concept entry records a term the paper itself uses, so the term, the sense given for it, and its evidence are the paper's own words, quoted where the paper fixes them. This is the opposite of a sense entry in the tag table, which is the tagger's sentence about how the paper uses a term. Where a concept entry could not be grounded in the paper's words, the entry says so on its own row.| relation to other work | claim_relations | how this paper stands to another: agrees, contradicts, extends, qualifies |
| claim type | claim_type | the shape of the claim: existence, mechanism, method, critique, prediction, null |
| concept edge | concept_edges | an asserted relation between two concepts, with the sentence asserting it |
| concept | concepts | an idea the paper works with, quoted where the paper uses it |
| content tag | content_tags | a finding, definition, quantity, statistic or variable named in the paper |
| limitation | limitations | what the paper says its evidence cannot support |
| mechanism | mechanisms | how the reported effect is said to come about |
| method | method | how the paper produced its evidence |
| phenomenon | phenomenon | the effect or regularity under study |
| sense | senses | a distinct use of a term, quoted where the paper fixes it |
| transfer | transfers | a method or concept carried in from another field |
Relations on this page carry a quotation for the claim. Where a relation was separately evidenced — and so tested against the vocabulary for its type — the row says so; none of 2 relations here carry that mark. The rest are the tagger’s reading of the sentence quoted beside them.
This record holds no controls. A layer is empty when the tagger recorded nothing in it — which is not the same as the paper having nothing to record.
| facet | tag | field | conf. | whose words |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| claim_type | existence Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | claim_type | the paper's words | |
| phenomenon | information transmission over noisy channels Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | phenomenon | the paper's words | |
| method | mathematical-proof Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: mathematical-proof | method | the paper's words | |
| mechanisms | mechanisms Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | mechanisms[0] | the tagger's words | |
| limitations | the theory deliberately excludes the semantic/meaning aspects of communication Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. what this limits: everything the theory is ever used to say about content: THESE SEMANTIC Quotation withheld - meaning is declared out of scope in the founding paper | limitations[0] | the tagger's words | |
| limitations | Meaning is explicitly excluded from the theory's scope. Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. duplicate of: limitations[0] · what this limits: the same scope as limitations[0] - meaning is excluded by construction, not by oversight | limitations[1] | the tagger's words | |
| limitations | The continuous-case results are deliberately not developed with full generality or measure-theoretic rigour. Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. what this limits: the continuous-case results: WE WILL NOT ATTEMPT, IN THE CONTINUOUS CASE, TO OBTAIN OUR RESULTS WITH THE GREATEST GENERALITY, OR WITH THE EXTREME RIGOR OF PURE MATHEMATICS | limitations[2] | the tagger's words | |
| limitations | The existence proof of the noisy-channel coding theorem does not yield a usable construction. Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. what this limits: any practical reading of the noisy-channel coding theorem: AN ATTEMPT TO OBTAIN A GOOD APPROXIMATION TO IDEAL CODING BY FOLLOWING THE METHOD OF THE PROOF IS GENERALLY IMPRACTICAL - existence, not construction | limitations[3] | the tagger's words | |
| limitations | For non-white noise the capacity cannot be computed explicitly, only bounded. Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. what this limits: capacity results for arbitrary noise: IT DOES NOT APPEAR THAT THE MAXIMIZING PROBLEM INVOLVED IN DETERMINING THE CHANNEL CAPACITY C CAN BE S[olved] explicitly | limitations[4] | the tagger's words | |
| limitations | Source rates relative to a fidelity criterion have only been computed in a handful of simple cases. Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. what this limits: the rate-versus-fidelity theory: THE ACTUAL CALCULATION OF RATES HAS BEEN CARRIED OUT IN ONLY A FEW VERY SIMPLE CASES | limitations[5] | the tagger's words | |
| limitations | Shannon states that the uniqueness theorem for H, and the assumptions behind it, are in no way necessary to the theory; the justification is deferred to the implications of the definitions. Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. what this limits: the axiomatic derivation of H as the theory's foundation: the paper says the theorem is not necessary and that the definitions are justified by their implications instead | limitations[6] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| limitations | The 50% redundancy figure for English is bounded to statistical structure within about eight letters. Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. what this limits: the 50% redundancy of English as an unqualified figure: it excludes statistical structure beyond about eight letters | limitations[7] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| transfers | entropy itself - the quantity H, its form, and its identification with the H of Boltzmann's theorem, carried out of statistical mechanics and made the measure of information in a communication channel Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | transfers[0] | 0.9 | the tagger's words |
| concepts | entropy Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: entropy | concepts[0] | the paper's words | |
| concepts | channel capacity Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: channel capacity | concepts[1] | the paper's words | |
| concepts | bit Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: bit | concepts[2] | the paper's words | |
| concepts | redundancy Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: redundancy | concepts[3] | the paper's words | |
| concepts | information Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: information | concepts[4] | the paper's words | |
| concepts | meaning Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: meaning | concepts[5] | the paper's words | |
| concepts | uncertainty Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: uncertainty | concepts[6] | the paper's words | |
| concepts | equivocation Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: equivocation | concepts[7] | the paper's words | |
| concepts | communication Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: communication | concepts[8] | the paper's words | |
| senses | information - the engineering sense: which message was selected from a known set, with meaning explicitly set aside Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | senses[0] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| senses | information - the significant aspect for design: one message drawn from a set of possible messages, any of which the system must handle Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | senses[1] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| senses | information - a rate at which a source produces, rather than a quantity a message contains Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | senses[2] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| senses | H - one quantity under three names: the amount of choice involved in a selection, and the uncertainty of the outcome Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | senses[3] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| senses | rate of transmission - not the transmitted bits minus the errors; the naive subtraction is shown to credit a channel that carries nothing Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | senses[4] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| senses | H - a single quantity serving as the measure of three things at once: information, choice and uncertainty Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | senses[5] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| senses | redundancy - the fraction of a message fixed by the structure of the language rather than freely chosen Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | senses[6] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| claim_relations | builds-on → Nyquist, "Certain Factors Affecting Telegraph Speed" / "Certain Topics in Telegraph Transmission Theory" and Hartley, "Transmission of Information" Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | claim_relations[0] | the tagger's words | |
| claim_relations | extends → the communication theory of Nyquist and Hartley Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | claim_relations[1] | the tagger's words | |
| claim_relations | builds-on → Hartley's logarithmic measure of information Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | claim_relations[2] | the tagger's words | |
| claim_relations | builds-on → N. Wiener, Cybernetics and The Interpolation, Extrapolation and Smoothing of Stationary Time Series Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | claim_relations[3] | the tagger's words | |
| claim_relations | replicates → R. M. Fano's coding method (Technical Report No. 65, Research Laboratory of Electronics, M.I.T.) Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | claim_relations[4] | the tagger's words | |
| concept_edges | entropy —same-as→ uncertainty Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. strength of the relation: 1
Audit 2026-09-28: DOUBTFUL - read against its span and kept, but the span is a question about measuring choice and uncertainty; it does not itself equate entropy with uncertainty. also in: entropy · uncertainty | concept_edges[1] | the tagger's words | |
| concept_edges | EVIDENCE CORRECTED (RE-GROUNDED) · redundancy —operationalised-as→ entropy Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. EVIDENCE CORRECTED: RE-GROUNDED. The old span named only one endpoint. This sentence names both and IS the definition - redundancy is one minus relative entropy, which is exactly what the edge records. — strength of the relation: 0.8 also in: redundancy · entropy | concept_edges[2] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | 5 — components of a communication system Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | content_tags.quantities[1] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | 2^N — N binary devices store N bits Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | content_tags.quantities[2] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | 3 — discrete, continuous, and mixed systems Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | content_tags.quantities[3] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | semantic meaning is irrelevant to the engineering problem Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | content_tags.findings[0] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | the fundamental problem is reproducing a message at another point Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | content_tags.findings[1] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | the logarithmic function is the natural measure of information Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | content_tags.findings[2] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | base-2 units of information are called bits Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | content_tags.findings[3] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | set of possible messages Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: set of possible messages | content_tags.variables[0] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | logarithmic base Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: logarithmic base | content_tags.variables[2] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | the channel Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: the channel | content_tags.variables[3] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | bit Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: bit | content_tags.definitions[0] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | communication system Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: communication system | content_tags.definitions[1] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | information source Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: information source | content_tags.definitions[2] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | discrete channel Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: discrete channel | content_tags.definitions[3] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | sample-size Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: sample-size | content_tags.statistics[1] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | EVIDENCE CORRECTED (RE-GROUNDED) · standard-deviation Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. EVIDENCE CORRECTED: RE-GROUNDED. The old span quoted the ensemble expression itself, from the web page we fetched, and reached the page as 'f /#28 ai /; t/#29/= /+ ∞ ∑ n/= ...'. The grounding copy states the same fact in prose with no debris at all, and that clause - not the formula - is what attests 'standard deviation'. A TEXT EXTRACTION CANNOT GROUND A CLAIM WHOSE EVIDENCE IS AN EQUATION, so the claim is grounded on the sentence that says it in words. also in: standard-deviation | content_tags.statistics[2] | the tagger's words |
Tags that could not be placed in the text:
content_tags.statistics[0] — quotation withheld — the page has already reproduced as much of this paper as the rights budget allowsWhat was deliberately not tagged, and why, is recorded per paper by the tagger. Where a paper has no such record, this page says so rather than implying that nothing was declined.