preparation of a proctored (written) exam: Step 3
The findings of step
1 and
2 induce some further examination of
information. That went a bit longely. It is shown below. After that some paragraphs of short summaries of the examined terms will be given:
Information is a [part of knowledge | part of the knowledge] of the [[sending knowledge storage]].
It is released from the [[knowledge]] of the sending knowledge storage, respectively - to be more specific - released from the [[the sender's context]].
Often, the [[sent information]] can be conceived by the [[sender]] without any difficulties; but if his/her own knowledge changed meanwhile he/she cannot conceive all pieces of the information anymore, although he/she sent it by himself/herself.
<==> Every single [[recipient]] [recipient dependent conceivability | conceives the information differently from each other].
A recipient can be someone/something else than the sender - although both ones have the whole same [[knowledge storage]], i.e. being for example the same individual. That's true, if the knowledge storage itself - i.e. it [[content]] - changed over time.
"Every single recipient conceives the information differently from each other" (see above). A sender gives an information a determined [[meaning]], i.e. a determined content. By [parameter | parameters], related to text for example by choice of words and word order in one or more sentences, that content gets [specificating | specified]: constricted, expanded (-- related to a given base form/[[archetype]]?), gets related, respectively: a [[context]] gets generated, e.g. in this writing:
Knowledge interacts with the sender, knowledge interacts with the recipient, [information transmission | information gets transmitted], parameters affect information, as well as the archetype has an effect to the information. The sender influences (the choice of) the archetype and the parameters, and lastly: Parameters and archetype are [a part of knowledge | parts of the knowledge].
For the sender, the meaning of these parameters can change over time. It cannot be debarred that anyone of the parameters completely loses meaning for the sender. Contingent on that, later he possibly doesn't recognize the presence of that parameter anymore. (- For him/her in the role of the recipient, it gets irrelevant relatively to the
[expected information]: The parameter gets missed
<==> [removal of parameters on recipient's site | filtered out]. => Thus, that parameter hasn't got any effect to the [information receipt | receipt information] anymore - neither in a relating, nor in a constricting nor expanding manner.
"Expected information": Parameters one got yet, already specify - from the recipient's point of view - the
[possible sendable information | possible sendable] information so far, that - from the recipient's point of view - it cannot be
any but the expected one anymore. I.e. the recipient recognizes any further parameters related to the
sent information as irrelevant respectively insignificant. He/She filters them out.
to be continued...<<
[locally referred by:
./.
]
preparation of a proctored (written) exam: Step 2
Due to the findings in
Step 1 I conclude, that
data are less than
atoms of knowledge and less than
knowledge [
mathematical-AND] data is less than
nodes of information and less than
information as well as less than knowledge – at what I come to the insight, that
atoms of knowledge and nodes of information have to be considered the same.
Due to the findings in
Step 1 I conclude,
atoms of knowledge to be more than
data, but less than
knowledge. I come to the insight, that atoms of knowledge and nodes of information have to be considered the same.
Due to the findings in
Step 1 I conclude, that
knowledge has to be considered as more than
atoms of knowledge, more than
data, and more than
information. Knowingly, I dissent the previous predication,
knowledge and information, in principle, were the same.
Node of information: see
"atom of knowledge" vs "node of information".
Atom of knowledge: see
"atom of knowledge" vs "node of information".
Due to the findings in
Step 1 I conclude, that
information is more than a
node of information but less than
knowledge. Knowingly, I dissent to the previous predication,
knowledge and information, in principle, were the same.
Due to the findings in
Step 1 I conclude, that
"atom of knowledge" and "node of information" have to be considered the same.
<<
[locally referred by:
preparation of a proctored (written) exam: Step 3]
preparation of a proctored (written) exam: Step 1
I assume
data to be less than
atoms of knowledge and less than
knowledge,
atoms of knowledge to be more than
data, but less than
knowledge, and
knowledge to be more than
atoms of knowledge and to be more than
data as well. I assume that, in principle,
knowledge and information are identical.
I assume that, in principle,
knowledge and information. both are the same.
Information is knowledge under way.
Knowledge is in the head of a human being, respectively in a
knowledge storage.
Knowledge in motion: Pressed out of, "wrung out" of the brains – more precisely: out of the
knowledge storage – is
knowledge information. A piece of
its knowledge. On the journey. Till
it gets conceived and placed into
one knowledge, again.
One knowledge: all the
nodes of knowledge including their context of a
knowledge storage. – Compare to
information is knowledge in motion.
Knowledge storage: not defined. Possibly the same as
one knowledge.
Node of knowledge: not defined. Possibly the same as an
atom of knowledge.
Information: I assume that, in principle,
knowledge and information are identical.
<<
[locally referred by:
preparation of a proctored (written) exam: Step 2,
preparation of a proctored (written) exam: Step 3]
Original launch date of this blog: October 14, 2005.
About This Blog
This blog is a bit special, since I opened it in retrospect, documenting work yet done. Every posting will relate to a piece of that work. Every piece of that work is already consistently timestamped, hence the postings of this blog are going to get matching timestamps. – This will disrupt the Atom News Feeder of this blog, so I'll add some kind of workaround for that issue as soon as possible.
Original launch date of this blog was October 14, 2005.
Since this blog is going to contain
transcriptions of pieces of work already done, only, and these postings going to get the timestamps of the original pieces, the date of the original launch of this blog will never show up in any of the blog's posting dates. Hence, I explicitely note it in the sidebar, quoted above.
Eventually, one day I'll switch to another blog layout and accidentally I'd lose that sidebar then. To avoid that I store the sidebar right in this posting.
To be able to retrieve this special posting at any time without much effort, this posting shall stay at the end of all the rest of the postings. Thus, it has to stay the first posting of the blog. To achieve that goal, this particular posting gets a fake timestamp. – Since my studies of information business (my special focus on that has been information science) led me to the question, what, exactly, knowledge is, I chose the first day of my studies of information business, September 1, 1998, for that faked timestamp. (In fact, I started thinking about thinking much earlier, but September 1, 1998, seems to be quite a good landmark/timemark.)
<<
[locally referred by:
./.
]
