[From: Bruce Nevin (Tue 930622 10:19:25 EDT)]
[Martin Taylor 930621 16:30]
The only
argument (initially) was that it was inconsistent to say two things at
the same time:
(1) that the output signal exactly mirrors the disturbance signal
(a claim made very strongly by Rick and you in many postings), and
(2) there is no information about the disturbance in the perceptual
signal (a claim made even more strongly, particularly by Rick).
You simply cannot have both (1) and (2) at the same time. They contradict.
It follows from (1) that there is information about the disturbance
in the output. For (2) to follow, it seems to me that you have to
demonstrate some kind of link between the output and the perceptual
input, such that there is information about the output in the perceptual
input, and (furthermore) that the information about the disturbance
that is in the output (for an outside observer) is preserved amid
the information about the output that is in the perceptual input
(for the control system). Have you demonstrated this link, or
something like it, and I missed it?
Bruce
bn@bbn.com