summaryrefslogtreecommitdiff
path: root/macros/latex/contrib/seminar/doc/semsamp2.tex
diff options
context:
space:
mode:
Diffstat (limited to 'macros/latex/contrib/seminar/doc/semsamp2.tex')
-rw-r--r--macros/latex/contrib/seminar/doc/semsamp2.tex297
1 files changed, 0 insertions, 297 deletions
diff --git a/macros/latex/contrib/seminar/doc/semsamp2.tex b/macros/latex/contrib/seminar/doc/semsamp2.tex
deleted file mode 100644
index b332a31414..0000000000
--- a/macros/latex/contrib/seminar/doc/semsamp2.tex
+++ /dev/null
@@ -1,297 +0,0 @@
-%%
-%% This file may be distributed and/or modified under the conditions of
-%% the LaTeX Project Public License, either version 1.2 of this license
-%% or (at your option) any later version. The latest version of this
-%% license is in:
-%%
-%% http://www.latex-project.org/lppl.txt
-%%
-%% and version 1.2 or later is part of all distributions of LaTeX version
-%% 1999/12/01 or later.
-%%
-
-%% BEGIN semsamp2.tex
-% This is a sample document for seminar.sty, v0.93 (and maybe later).
-%
-% This file contains both landscape and portrait mode slides.
-% Choose one of the following to print them out:
-% - If using PSTricks, try the semcolor style option.
-% - If using Rokicki's dvips, try the semrot style option.
-% - To print the landscape slides, put \landscapeonly in the preamble.
-% To print the portrait slides, include the portrait style option and
-% put \portraitonly in the preamble.
-%
-%
-\documentclass[%
- slidesonly,% Try notes or notesonly instead.
- %notes,% Use instead of slidesonly to typeset the notes.
- %notesonly,% Use instead of slidesonly to typeset notes and slides.
- semcolor,% Try me if using PSTricks.
- semrot,% Try me if using Rokicki's dvips.
- %semhelv,% Try me if using a PostScript printer.
- %article,% Try me.
- %portrait,% Try me.
- %sem-a4,% Try me if using A4 paper.
- semlayer% This must be included, but you need the semcolor option to
- ]{seminar} % actually see the overlays.
-
-\slidesmag{5}
-\articlemag{1}
-
-%\twoup % Try me for twoup printing.
-
-%\portraitonly % To print only portrait slides
-%\landscapeonly % To print only landscape slides
-
-%\notslides{\ref{questions}-7,1} %Try me: The slides are omitted.
-%\onlyslides{\ref{questions}-7,1} %Try me: Only these slides are included.
-%\onlynotestoo %Try me: For selecting notes as well.
-
-%\colorlayers{red,blue} % Try deleting this if using the semcolor option,
- % to get \blue and \red to use PostScript color.
-
-%\overlaysfalse % Suppress overlays with semcolor option.
-%\layersfalse % Suppress color layers with semcolor option.
-
-\rotateheaderstrue % Try this out if using rotation macros.
-
-
-\title{Example for seminar.sty}
-\author{Policarpa Salabarrieta}
-\date{July 21, 1991}
-
-\newcommand\sref[1]{SLIDE \ref{#1}}
-\newcommand\heading[1]{\begin{center}\large\bf #1\end{center}}
-
-\newpagestyle{MH}%
- {University of Guaduas, March 13, 1998\hfil\thepage}{}
-\pagestyle{MH}
-
-\begin{document}
-
-\maketitle % This won't show up when \onlynotestoo is in effect.
-
-\begin{slide}
- \ifslidesonly % Title slide only for slidesonly selection.
- \maketitle
- \addtocounter{slide}{-1}
- \slidepagestyle{empty}
- \fi
-\end{slide}
-
-This is a lot of gobbledy-gook intended only to illustrate some of the
-features of seminar.sty.
-
- The phrase information overload rings a bell with just about anyone.
-Certainly you all receive more working papers or more applications for
-graduate school than you can readily read. Nevertheless, the term information
-overload is ill-defined. (\sref{too_much}, top)
-
- A message like this when you check your email conjures up the notion of
-information overload. More generally, information overload always means too
-much information, in some sense or another. But what does ``too much'' mean?
-(\sref{too_much}, bottom) It might just mean that people cannot process all
-the information they receive. That is certainly true for everyone. A claim
-that is much stronger, and that is implicit when people complain about
-informaton overload, is that people {\em should} receive less information, by
-some criterion.
-
-\begin{slide}\label{too_much}%
-\begin{center}
- \large\bf
- Information overload = ``Too much'' information
-\end{center}
-\smallskip
-
-\begin{verse} \bf\tt
- You have 134 unread messages:\\
- Do you want to read them now?
-\end{verse}
-
-\begin{enumerate}
- {\overlay2
- \item People {\overlay1 cannot process all} the information they receive.}
- \item People {\em should} receive less information.
- \end{enumerate}
-\end{slide}
-
- In this paper, I use the term ``information overload'' in both senses.
-(\sref{overload}, bottom). Specifically, I say that an {\em individual} is
-overloaded with information if she receives more information than she can
-process. But I say that there is information overload in a {\em network} if
-there is some mechanism that makes the senders and/or receivers better off by
-restricting the flow of information. This latter notion of information
-overload is an equilibrium property, and it depends on what we mean by
-``better off.''
-
-\begin{slide*}\label{overload}
-\ptsize{12}
-
-\begin{itemize}{\overlay1
- \item There is information {\overlay0 overload in a network if} there is
-some mechanism that, compared to the {\em status quo}, makes the senders
-and/or receivers better off by restricting the flow} of information.'
-
- \item There is information overload in a network if there is some mechanism
-that, compared to the {\em status quo}, makes the senders and/or receivers
-better off by restricting the flow of information.
-\end{itemize}
-
-\end{slide*}
-
-(\sref{questions})
- The purpose of my paper is to show why there can be information overload in
-a network and what kind of mechanisms can make the receivers and/or senders
-better off. Since the cost of communication is one factor that restricts
-communication, I am thus also going to look at how the welfare of the senders
-and receivers depends on the cost of communication.
-
- Most messages don't become jumbled and we can choose which ones to process.
-But some of us may have a bias towards choosing to process more information
-than we should, like the graduate student who feels compelled to read every
-article on the usual lengthy reading list, and just ends up getting confused
-and ruffling through the papers.
-
-
-\begin{slide}[7.3in,5.5in] \label{questions}
-\heading{Questions}
-
-\begin{itemize}
- {\overlay1 \item When could {\blue there be overload} in networks?}
- \item What mechanims make the receivers and senders better off?
- \item How does the welfare {\red of the senders} and receivers depend on the
-cost of communication?
-\end{itemize}
-\end{slide}
-
-
-However, experiments in consumer research and psychology have failed to find
-that such a bias is prevalent. This is in spite of the fact that it is common
-for stress and cognitive strain to increase with information load. We may
-incur such stress and strain because the information we choose to process is
-valuable to us.
-
-More commonly, then, we can and do choose to process roughly as much
-information as we can handle efficiently. This is called screening. But when
-we choose which messages to begin to process, we're ignorant of their
-contents, since otherwise there would be no reason to process them in the
-first place. Therefore, if we receive more junk mail, then some of the
-important mail gets crowded out, and we are effectively less informed.
-
-\begin{slide} \label{informed}
-\begin{center}
- {\bf Being more informed} \par
- \smallskip
- is always better,\par
- \medskip
- \overlay1{but it's not the same as \par
- \smallskip
- {\bf receiving more information}}
-\end{center}
-\end{slide}
-
- Why would the senders communicate too many messages in the first place? If I
-present too much material in this seminar, you have to choose which parts to
-ignore and I would rather make that decision myself, since I know what I most
-want to get across. Thus, it is in my interest not to overload you with
-information. Generally, whenever there is a single sender of messages, that
-sender will prefer to screen rather than have the receiver screen, because the
-sender has an interest in which messages the receiver processes.
-But when there are more senders, one sender's messages tend to crowd out the
-messages of the other senders, as in this example here. If the senders don't
-take this external cost into account when sending messages, they may
-collectively overload the receiver. (\sref{akbar})
-
-There are several reasons that our scarcity of attention, that is, our limited
-capacity to process information, can mean that we become less informed when we
-receive more information. I have a cartoon here to illustrate these reasons.
-(\sref{akbar})
-
-\begin{slide}\label{akbar}\def\slidefuzz{15pt}
- {\large A tax $\tau$ on communication is said to support
-$\tilde{\cal{X}}(c)$ if $\tilde{\cal{X}}(c)$ is an equilibrium for
-$\Gamma(c+\tau)$.}
-\medskip
-
- {\bf Proposition 6.} {\em Assume $\tilde{\cal{X}}(c)$ is not an equilibrium
-for $\Gamma(c)$.\vspace{-3pt}
-\begin{enumerate}
- \item If $\mbox{supp}(\gamma)=[0,1]^n$, there is no tax that supports
-$\tilde{\cal{X}}(c)$.
- \item If $\mbox{supp}(\gamma)=S^{n-1}$, there is a tax that supports
-$\tilde{\cal{X}}(c)$ if and only if $m=1$, $p_j>c\, \forall j$, and
- \begin{enumerate}
- \item $n=2$; or
- \item $n=3$ and $p_i^{-1}+p_j^{-1}\geq p_k^{-1}$ for all distinct
-$i,j,k$; or
- \item $n=4$ and $p_1=p_2=p_3=p_4$.
-\end{enumerate}
-\end{enumerate}}
-\end{slide}
-
- If, by restricting communication, we eliminate the less relevant messages,
-then we can become more informed. But how can we achieve this? Restricting the
-flow of information shifts the task of screening messages from the receivers
-to the senders. Unlike the receivers, the senders do know the contents of the
-messages they originate. If the senders' interests coincide with those of the
-receiver and if the senders have sufficient knowledge about the receivers,
-then the senders will choose the messages which are most relevant to the
-receivers. This may make the receivers, and even the senders, better off.
-
- The network in Slide \ref{architectures} attains the minimal delay $c(8,24)
-= 6$ using 8 processors. It is an example of the efficient one-shot networks
-described by Foo. We will focus on a class of networks that are similar to the
-Foo networks but that may differ slightly. For $q$, $c$ and $n$ such that $1
-\leq q \leq \lfloor n/2 \rfloor$ and $c(q,n) \leq c \leq n$, let $R_{nqc}$ be
-the class of essential networks for adding $n$ items using $q$ processors in
-$c$ cycles that have the following properties:
-
-\begin{slide*}\label{architectures}
-\heading{Architecture}
-
-\begin{center}
-\setlength{\unitlength}{1.65in}
-\begin{picture}(1.1,1.6)(3.5,5.0)
-\put(4.0,6.5){\circle*{.04}}
-\put(4.1,6.5){1}
-\put(4.0,6.0){\circle*{.04}}
-\put(4.1,6.0){2}
-\put(4.0,6.1){\vector(0,1){.3}}
-\put(3.5,6.0){\circle*{.04}}
-\put(3.6,6.0){3}
-\put(3.6,6.1){\vector(1,1){.3}}
-\put(4.0,5.5){\circle*{.04}}
-\put(4.1,5.5){4}
-\put(4.0,5.6){\vector(0,1){.3}}
-\put(4.5,6.0){\circle*{.04}}
-\put(4.6,6.0){5}
-\put(4.4,6.1){\vector(-1,1){.3}}
-\put(4.5,5.5){\circle*{.04}}
-\put(4.6,5.5){6}
-\put(4.4,5.6){\vector(-1,1){.3}}
-\put(3.5,5.5){\circle*{.04}}
-\put(3.6,5.5){7}
-\put(3.5,5.6){\vector(0,1){.3}}
-\put(4.0,5.0){\circle*{.04}}
-\put(4.1,5.0){8}
-\put(4.0,5.1){\vector(0,1){.3}}
-\end{picture}
-\end{center}
-\end{slide*}
-
-Why would the senders communicate too many messages in the first place? If I
-present too much material in this seminar, you have to choose which parts to
-ignore and I would rather make that decision myself, since I know what I most
-want to get across. Thus, it is in my interest not to overload you with
-information.
-
-Generally, whenever there is a single sender of messages, that sender will
-prefer to screen rather than have the receiver screen, because the sender has
-an interest in which messages the receiver processes. But when there are more
-senders, one sender's messages tend to crowd out the messages of the other
-senders, as in this example here. If the senders don't take this external cost
-into account when sending messages, they may collectively overload the
-receiver. (\sref{architectures})
-
-\end{document}
-%% END semsamp2.tex