diff options
Diffstat (limited to 'Master/texmf-dist/doc/latex/seminar/semsamp2.tex')
| -rw-r--r-- | Master/texmf-dist/doc/latex/seminar/semsamp2.tex | 297 |
1 files changed, 297 insertions, 0 deletions
diff --git a/Master/texmf-dist/doc/latex/seminar/semsamp2.tex b/Master/texmf-dist/doc/latex/seminar/semsamp2.tex new file mode 100644 index 00000000000..0cb70611611 --- /dev/null +++ b/Master/texmf-dist/doc/latex/seminar/semsamp2.tex @@ -0,0 +1,297 @@ +%% +%% 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 |