Thought experiment
If you have a person A in London and a person B in New York and A sends B an email. At this point A doesn't know whether B got the email, so to clarify matters B sends back a confirmation email saying that he got the email.

At this point A knows that B got the email, B knows he got the email but B doesn't know whether A knows that he got the confirmation email.

So to clarify the matter A sends back an email stating that he received the confirmation email.

But then A doesn't know whether B got this email!!!!!!!....

so on and so on......

end of thought experiment.


Is this an important dilemma in the logic of communications?
Does it have a name?

If the same logic where to apply to the information exchange within atoms and within subatomic particles(the information that keeps a particle running, ie the blueprint of the particle, the information that keeps the particle in one piece), would this explain why entangled particles are closed systems?

__________________

Don't know if it had a name, other than "this won't work". Solved, for instance in TCP/IP, where data is divided into packets -- little itty-bitty emails if you want to think of them that way. The packets have sequence numbers attached, and they are acknowledged as received. If the sender doesn't see an acknowledgement of a sent packet within a reasonable time, it resends.

I have no idea.

__________________
0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 ...

Put it another way.

If system A has data X an Y but B only has data Y,

then A sends B package of data X,

so then they both have X and Y but then B has some new data R which is the knowledge that B received the package X.

So then B sends A package of data R

so then they both have X,Y and R but then A has knowledge R2, that is that it knows that it received package R.

So it then sends B package of data R2.

R3,R4,R5....... are exchanged ad em infinitum.




If an atomic particle were a closed system(as are two entangled particles) then you can have particle A and particle B which behave just as the two systems above. Continually exchanging information and receipts of information.

This could be the reason for an exclusion principle where by system A and system B have to remain distinct because they can never contain the same information.

could this be true?

What happens when a star collapses do more and more heavy particles get produced? When a heavy particle gets made from two lighter particles does the R piece of data get chucked out as radiation?

Or has this all been covered already?

__________________

Why, yes. Yes it does...

__________________
"If a tree is cut down in the rainforest, and is used to make paper to print a book, and the book is really bad, and there's nobody that will read it, do you still hear a sucking sound?"
Charlie in Dayton, A.AsC.

I don't think it matters. I think it's enough that both A and B know that A got the original message. It doesn't matter whether they know that the confirmation messages were received or not. Right?

__________________
As above, so below

I saw a puzzle like this once. In the days before radio, the commanders of army A and army B want to attack the enemy from opposite directions. Either would lose if attacking alone so neither will attack unless he knows that the other will also attack. So A gets into position and sends a carrier pigeon to B saying he's ready. B receives the message and confirms by pigeon to A that he's also ready. But now B realizes that A won't attack unless he gets the pigeon from B and B is unwilling to attack unless he knows this. A could send another pigeon to B but now A won't know if B got it, so now A is unwilling to attack. No matter how many pigeons are sent back and forth, there's no way each commander can know that the other will attack. The attack can't take place under these conditions.

__________________
Life is like a box of chocolates. All of your choices are bad for you.

See Prisoner's dilemma.

__________________
I have grasped the bull by the tail and am lookin' 'im right in the eye.

A person who was new to computers and the Internet once sent me an email whose message included the following:

__________________
A person's name, or a mark representing it, as signed personally or by deputy, as in subscribing a letter or other document.

If you are still having trouble connecting to the internet, go to online.usersupport.com to report the problem

__________________
http://cleardarksky.com/c/DrhmNCcs0.gif

Hmmm... Lets see... You could make a system that used acknowledgements like this:

All ok:
A sends the mail to B, B receives mail, B sends Ack, A receives Ack. A does nothing more. Transaction is successful, both sides know this.

B does not receive:
A sends mail to B, B does not receive, B sends no Ack, A waits for a time out period before resending. After a certain amount of retries, A will know there is an error. Transaction not successful, A most contact B in some other way. B does not know that A has tried to send a mail.

A does not receive:
A sends mail to B, B receives mail, B sends Ack, A does not receive Ack and resends mail, B understands that A did not get Ack and resends Ack, A does not receive Ack and so resends. Transaction was not successful, B know the Acks does not reach A, and so must contact A over an alternate medium, or wait until A contacts him/her.

So, if A does not receive confirmation, A resends a certain number of times, and if that fails turn to an alternate medium or try again at a later time, Unless I missed something, I see no real need for acknowledging Acks... It is sort of like a basic connection oriented protocol, but it will do. How it would tie in with particles and entanglement though, I do not know.

__________________
Game over, you lose, we hope you enjoyed playing the exciting game of Thermodynamics...