User talk:Jamessungjin.kim

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Diversity Coding was added since there was no description in wiki but there was the internal link in MIMO description.

[edit] Maintenence of MIMO entry

Hi JSK, I understand your concerns on the mathematical description of the MIMO entry. My concern is that the current mathematical description is incorrect and doesn't really make any sense. I don't think that it is any less confusing than the mathematical description that I wrote. I think what the current description lacks is an intuitive understanding of how a matrix channel represents a MIMO system. If your opinion is that the MIMO entry shouldn't include too much math, maybe there needs to be a separate Wikipedia entry for the mathematical description of MIMO. I disagree that Wikipedia shouldn't have any mathematical content, however. Consider, for example, the "calculus" entry or the "markov chain" entry. A vital part of MIMO is the mathematical model. If we're going to include it in the MIMO entry at all, it needs to be correct. Otherwise maybe it should be in another Wikipedia entry or just refer to the Telatar paper. I hope we can come to a compromise. Thanks for your contributions...you'd be surprised how many undegraduates and industry professionals seek help from Wikipedia in learning the fundamental concepts of MIMO. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rcd247 (talk • contribs) 19:17, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Then, why don't you just update that part (incorrect part), not whole page or section. In addtion, if you want to add some new descriptions, why don't you make children of main MIMO article, as examples of 3G MIMO or WiMAX MIMO. Your branch page can be 'MIMO mathmatical description. There are many such papges in Wikipedia. JSK (talk) 23:52, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Multiple antennas etc.

Hi JSK. To answer your two questions on my talk page:

1. "Is multiple antenna equivalent to MIMO?"

   Yes, of course it is. (Or it is equivalent to the SIMO/MISO/SISO systems as appropriate). STTD and TxAA are merely MIMO architectures. I suppose you are pointing out that they have only >1 antenna at transmit and so are MISO systems, but these are just degenerate MIMO systems. This does not change the fact that they fall under the general research umbrella of MIMO (and it is just an implementation detail that they have only 1 antenna at the receiver). A new article on 'multiple antenna communications' would be a possibility, but really MIMO encompasses all the various versions of itself whenever anyone in the field is discussing it. There is no value in atomising the topic, and Wikipedia collects articles under their 'most common' name. Here, that is clearly 'MIMO'. If it is really important to you, we can talk about how Multiple antenna communications might be structured as an article.

2. "Is intelligent antenna equivalent to Smart antenna?"

   I do not accept that 'intelligent antenna' is terminology that is in wide, independent use. Moreover, the article is totally unacceptable to Wikipedia as it stands. It is 100% original philosophy, from the invented 'quote' at the top to the suggestion of humanoid similarities at the bottom. That you have copy-pasted some parts of the other (far too spread out) articles into it does nothing to improve the situation - it merely duplicates those articles for no benefit.

   On the substantive point, 'intelligent antenna' is not in wide use as a distinct concept from the multiple-antenna architectures it describes. It is used occasionally to talk about those architectures, but is a minority terminology that requires a mention in another article as a terminological alternative, and cannot sustain an independent article. As evidenced by the lack of independent content in it as it stands. See for example a search of IEEEXplore: [1], which finds a mere 38 usages of the term in its entire database, very few of them in more recent years. I don't care what Lucent calls things - they are entitled to their terminological quirks, and Wikipedia does not adopt one company's language just because it's a bit different to the norm.

The article Multiple antenna research is only a collection of quotes from other websites and Wikipedia articles. This is not the purpose of a Wikipedia article, since it is the purpose of personal websites to collect little bits like that, see here for why. There is essentially nothing in the article that is not already in the main MIMO article. Also, I do not think that an article documenting the state of research in any field is appropriate material in the first place. Wikipedia is a collection of knowledge rather than a sort-of magazine of what's going on in the world.

I hope that clarifies things for you. I have reversed your changes for the reasons set out in my edit summaries yesterday and amplified above. I observe also that there are more than a few occasions of original interpretations in your writing. Whilst they are invariably interesting, Wikipedia is not the place for them.

Finally, please do not use the excuse of 'too quick' as a reason for reverting editors' changes. The mandate to be confident in editing is important, and to reverse changes because they were too fast for your liking, rather than for any substantive technical reason, is bad. And to answer the question in the title of the section on my talk page: no, it was not vandalism, which has a very particular meaning on Wikipedia and which should only be used with great care. Splash - tk 12:50, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Collaboration

Despite the somewhat critical nature of my note in the section above, I'm pleased to find another MIMO research active on Wikipedia. Although I've been here for a couple of years now, I've never actually got around to looking at multi-antenna related things, despite working on them all day every day! I'm going to write to you again later with some suggestions for how we might re-structure the collection of articles you (and I) have written. I'd like to link them together more efficiently and see how we can make sure they focus on reporting the established underlying facts of one broad, concrete topic at a time. Please don't take this the wrong way: it's more in the nature of peer-review than anything, and I'd like to work together to improve WP's coverage of the topic. Splash - tk 13:06, 28 September 2007 (UTC)