3 ms·
I agree with the author re: the relative importance of coding vs. non-coding regions, but disagree with the section on Shannon information. Shannon information
by chrchang523 7y ago
I agree with the author re: the relative importance of coding vs. non-coding regions, but disagree with the section on Shannon information.
Shannon information provides a trivial upper bound on Kolmogorov complexity: imagine a tiny program with a huge data segment, which just copies the contents of the data segment to standard output. In the case of the human genome, this value is on the order of 6 billion bits. The key takeaway is that a much larger fraction of these bits than one might expect from the phrase "20000 genes" are potentially relevant, not that Shannon information somehow underestimates complexity.
- downerending 7y agoPerhaps along these lines, when considering compression, there is a tradeoff of sorts between the size of the compressed result and the size of the decompressor. If I get to choose the decompressor for a file, the answer to the question of how small I can make the compressed file is "all the way" (i.e. zero bits). It seems likely that the amount of information in the DNA "decompressor" (in mammals, the mother and her environment) dwarfs the amount actually present in the DNA itself.
- DoctorOetker 7y agoexcept that the decompressor is encoded in the genome, just like actual compressor comparisons compare the sizes of competing compressor + data
- downerending 7y agoIt is indeed proper to use that sum as a metric. It's not necessarily the case that the decompressor is encoded in the genome, though. It may very well be that crucial biological information is passed from mother to child in other ways, and it could turn out to be a lot of information.