4

1

Observation: Entropy is a metric over some non commutative ring. Indeed, if we exponentiate the standard entropy definition

$\displaystyle H(X) = -\sum_{x \in \mathcal{X}} p(x) \ln p(x).$

we'll get

$\displaystyle exp(H(X)) = -\prod_{x \in \mathcal{X}} p(x)^{p(x)}.$

The later is just a sum of squares if we interpret multiplication as summation and power as multiplication. This triggers all kind of questions, the most important one: can summation of probabilities be demoted and, possibly, entirely excluded from the theory?

flag
6 
Unfortunately, the $x^y$ operation is not just non-commutative. It is also non-associative (and non-Lie-bracket), so you won't get anything out of noncommutative algebra. Entropy is strange. Live with it. – darij grinberg Jan 20 2011 at 18:49
2 
Hi Tegiri, what is the motivation for this question? – Kirill Shmakov Oct 14 2011 at 19:05
@darij grinberg: can you share a perspective on entropy from the point of view of non-associative algebra? I'd love to hear more about its strangeness. – Tom LaGatta Feb 26 at 6:11

1 Answer

2

Section 2.5 of David Ellerman's "Counting distinctions: on the conceptual foundations of Shannon’s information theory" overviews the history of the sum of probability squares formula known as Gini coefficient later consolidated with Shannon's definition via Tsallis entropy.

link|flag

Your Answer

Get an OpenID
or

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.