The Jordan Antiquities Database and Information System (JADIS) was a computer database of antiquities in Jordan, the first of its kind in the Arab world. It was established by the Department of Antiquities in 1990, in cooperation with the American Center for Oriental Research in Amman and sponsored by the United States Agency for International Development. JADIS was in use until 2002, when it was superseded by a new system, MEGA-J. Over 10,841 antiquities were registered in the database. An introduction and printed summary of the database was published by the Department of Antiquities in 1994, edited by Gaetano Palumbo.
Generative art
Generative art is post-conceptual art that has been created (in whole or in part) with the use of an autonomous system. An autonomous system in this context is generally one that is non-human and can independently determine features of an artwork that would otherwise require decisions made directly by the artist. In some cases the human creator may claim that the generative system represents their own artistic idea, and in others that the system takes on the role of the creator. "Generative art" often refers to algorithmic art (algorithmically determined computer generated artwork) and synthetic media (general term for any algorithmically generated media), but artists can also make generative art using systems of chemistry, biology, mechanics and robotics, smart materials, manual randomization, mathematics, data mapping, symmetry, and tiling. Generative algorithms, algorithms programmed to produce artistic works through predefined rules, stochastic methods, or procedural logic, often yielding dynamic, unique, and contextually adaptable outputs—are central to many of these practices. == History == The use of the word "generative" in the discussion of art has developed over time. The use of "Artificial DNA" defines a generative approach to art focused on the construction of a system able to generate unpredictable events, all with a recognizable common character. The use of autonomous systems, required by some contemporary definitions, focuses a generative approach where the controls are strongly reduced. This approach is also named "emergent". Margaret Boden and Ernest Edmonds have noted the use of the term "generative art" in the broad context of automated computer graphics in the 1960s, beginning with artwork exhibited by Georg Nees and Frieder Nake in 1965: A. Michael Noll did his initial computer art, combining randomness with order, in 1962, and exhibited it along with works by Bell Julesz in 1965. The terms "generative art" and "computer art" have been used in tandem, and more or less interchangeably, since the very earliest days. The first such exhibition showed the work of Nees in February 1965, which some claim was titled "Generative Computergrafik". While Nees does not himself remember, this was the title of his doctoral thesis published a few years later. The correct title of the first exhibition and catalog was "computer-grafik". "Generative art" and related terms was in common use by several other early computer artists around this time, including Manfred Mohr and Ken Knowlton. Vera Molnár (born 1924) is a French media artist of Hungarian origin. Molnar is widely considered to be a pioneer of generative art, and is also one of the first women to use computers in her art practice. The term "Generative Art" with the meaning of dynamic artwork-systems able to generate multiple artwork-events was clearly used the first time for the "Generative Art" conference in Milan in 1998. The term has also been used to describe geometric abstract art where simple elements are repeated, transformed, or varied to generate more complex forms. Thus defined, generative art was practiced by the Argentinian artists Eduardo Mac Entyre and Miguel Ángel Vidal in the late 1960s. In 1972 the Romanian-born Paul Neagu created the Generative Art Group in Britain. It was populated exclusively by Neagu using aliases such as "Hunsy Belmood" and "Edward Larsocchi". In 1972 Neagu gave a lecture titled 'Generative Art Forms' at the Queen's University, Belfast Festival. In 1970 the School of the Art Institute of Chicago created a department called Generative Systems. As described by Sonia Landy Sheridan the focus was on art practices using the then new technologies for the capture, inter-machine transfer, printing and transmission of images, as well as the exploration of the aspect of time in the transformation of image information. Also noteworthy is John Dunn, first a student and then a collaborator of Sheridan. In 1988 Clauser identified the aspect of systemic autonomy as a critical element in generative art: It should be evident from the above description of the evolution of generative art that process (or structuring) and change (or transformation) are among its most definitive features, and that these features and the very term 'generative' imply dynamic development and motion. (the result) is not a creation by the artist but rather the product of the generative process - a self-precipitating structure. In 1989 Celestino Soddu defined the Generative Design approach to Architecture and Town Design in his book Citta' Aleatorie. In 1989 Franke referred to "generative mathematics" as "the study of mathematical operations suitable for generating artistic images." From the mid-1990s Brian Eno popularized the terms generative music and generative systems, making a connection with earlier experimental music by Terry Riley, Steve Reich and Philip Glass. From the end of the 20th century, communities of generative artists, designers, musicians and theoreticians began to meet, forming cross-disciplinary perspectives. The first meeting about generative Art was in 1998, at the inaugural International Generative Art conference at Politecnico di Milano University, Italy. In Australia, the Iterate conference on generative systems in the electronic arts followed in 1999. On-line discussion has centered around the eu-gene mailing list, which began late 1999, and has hosted much of the debate which has defined the field. These activities have more recently been joined by the Generator.x conference in Berlin starting in 2005. In 2012 the new journal GASATHJ, Generative Art Science and Technology Hard Journal was founded by Celestino Soddu and Enrica Colabella jointing several generative artists and scientists in the editorial board. Some have argued that as a result of this engagement across disciplinary boundaries, the community has converged on a shared meaning of the term. As Boden and Edmonds put it in 2011: Today, the term "Generative Art" is still current within the relevant artistic community. Since 1998 a series of conferences have been held in Milan with that title (Generativeart.com), and Brian Eno has been influential in promoting and using generative art methods (Eno, 1996). Both in music and in visual art, the use of the term has now converged on work that has been produced by the activation of a set of rules and where the artist lets a computer system take over at least some of the decision-making (although, of course, the artist determines the rules). In the call of the Generative Art conferences in Milan (annually starting from 1998), the definition of Generative Art by Celestino Soddu: Generative Art is the idea realized as genetic code of artificial events, as construction of dynamic complex systems able to generate endless variations. Each Generative Project is a concept-software that works producing unique and non-repeatable events, like music or 3D Objects, as possible and manifold expressions of the generating idea strongly recognizable as a vision belonging to an artist / designer / musician / architect /mathematician. Discussion on the eu-gene mailing list was framed by the following definition by Adrian Ward from 1999: Generative art is a term given to work which stems from concentrating on the processes involved in producing an artwork, usually (although not strictly) automated by the use of a machine or computer, or by using mathematic or pragmatic instructions to define the rules by which such artworks are executed. A similar definition is provided by Philip Galanter: Generative art refers to any art practice where the artist creates a process, such as a set of natural language rules, a computer program, a machine, or other procedural invention, which is then set into motion with some degree of autonomy contributing to or resulting in a completed work of art. Around the 2020s, generative AI models learned to imitate the distinct style of particular authors. For example, a generative image model such as Stable Diffusion is able to model the stylistic characteristics of an artist like Pablo Picasso (including his particular brush strokes, use of colour, perspective, and so on), and a user can engineer a prompt such as "an astronaut riding a horse, by Picasso" to cause the model to generate a novel image applying the artist's style to an arbitrary subject. Generative image models have received significant backlash from artists who object to their style being imitated without their permission, arguing that this harms their ability to profit from their own work. The emergence of text-to-image generative AI systems has expanded debates over authorship, copyright, and artistic labor. The main issues in these debates include the eligibility of AI-generated outputs for copyright protection and the legal and ethical questions of using existing copyrighted works as training data for generative AI systems. == Types == === Music === Johann Kirnberger's Mu
Data transformation (computing)
In computing, data transformation is the process of converting data from one format or structure into another format or structure. It is a fundamental aspect of most data integration and data management tasks such as data wrangling, data warehousing, data integration and application integration. Data transformation can be simple or complex based on the required changes to the data between the source (initial) data and the target (final) data. Data transformation is typically performed via a mixture of manual and automated steps. Tools and technologies used for data transformation can vary widely based on the format, structure, complexity, and volume of the data being transformed. A master data recast is another form of data transformation where the entire database of data values is transformed or recast without extracting the data from the database. All data in a well-designed database is directly or indirectly related to a limited set of master database tables by a network of foreign key constraints. Each foreign key constraint is dependent upon a unique database index from the parent database table. Therefore, when the proper master database table is recast with a different unique index, the directly and indirectly related data are also recast or restated. The directly and indirectly related data may also still be viewed in the original form since the original unique index still exists with the master data. Also, the database recast must be done in such a way as to not impact the applications architecture software. When the data mapping is indirect via a mediating data model, the process is also called data mediation. == Data transformation process == Data transformation can be divided into the following steps, each applicable as needed based on the complexity of the transformation required. Data discovery Data mapping Code generation Code execution Data review These steps are often the focus of developers or technical data analysts who may use multiple specialized tools to perform their tasks. The steps can be described as follows: Data discovery is the first step in the data transformation process. Typically the data is profiled using profiling tools or sometimes using manually written profiling scripts to better understand the structure and characteristics of the data and decide how it needs to be transformed. Data mapping is the process of defining how individual fields are mapped, modified, joined, filtered, aggregated etc. to produce the final desired output. Developers or technical data analysts traditionally perform data mapping since they work in the specific technologies to define the transformation rules (e.g. visual ETL tools, transformation languages). Code generation is the process of generating executable code (e.g. SQL, Python, R, or other executable instructions) that will transform the data based on the desired and defined data mapping rules. Typically, the data transformation technologies generate this code based on the definitions or metadata defined by the developers. Code execution is the step whereby the generated code is executed against the data to create the desired output. The executed code may be tightly integrated into the transformation tool, or it may require separate steps by the developer to manually execute the generated code. Data review is the final step in the process, which focuses on ensuring the output data meets the transformation requirements. It is typically the business user or final end-user of the data that performs this step. Any anomalies or errors in the data that are found and communicated back to the developer or data analyst as new requirements to be implemented in the transformation process. == Types of data transformation == === Batch data transformation === Traditionally, data transformation has been a bulk or batch process, whereby developers write code or implement transformation rules in a data integration tool, and then execute that code or those rules on large volumes of data. This process can follow the linear set of steps as described in the data transformation process above. Batch data transformation is the cornerstone of virtually all data integration technologies such as data warehousing, data migration and application integration. When data must be transformed and delivered with low latency, the term "microbatch" is often used. This refers to small batches of data (e.g. a small number of rows or a small set of data objects) that can be processed very quickly and delivered to the target system when needed. === Benefits of batch data transformation === Traditional data transformation processes have served companies well for decades. The various tools and technologies (data profiling, data visualization, data cleansing, data integration etc.) have matured and most (if not all) enterprises transform enormous volumes of data that feed internal and external applications, data warehouses and other data stores. === Limitations of traditional data transformation === This traditional process also has limitations that hamper its overall efficiency and effectiveness. The people who need to use the data (e.g. business users) do not play a direct role in the data transformation process. Typically, users hand over the data transformation task to developers who have the necessary coding or technical skills to define the transformations and execute them on the data. This process leaves the bulk of the work of defining the required transformations to the developer, which often in turn do not have the same domain knowledge as the business user. The developer interprets the business user requirements and implements the related code/logic. This has the potential of introducing errors into the process (through misinterpreted requirements), and also increases the time to arrive at a solution. This problem has given rise to the need for agility and self-service in data integration (i.e. empowering the user of the data and enabling them to transform the data themselves interactively). There are companies that provide self-service data transformation tools. They are aiming to efficiently analyze, map and transform large volumes of data without the technical knowledge and process complexity that currently exists. While these companies use traditional batch transformation, their tools enable more interactivity for users through visual platforms and easily repeated scripts. Still, there might be some compatibility issues (e.g. new data sources like IoT may not work correctly with older tools) and compliance limitations due to the difference in data governance, preparation and audit practices. === Interactive data transformation === Interactive data transformation (IDT) is an emerging capability that allows business analysts and business users the ability to directly interact with large datasets through a visual interface, understand the characteristics of the data (via automated data profiling or visualization), and change or correct the data through simple interactions such as clicking or selecting certain elements of the data. Although interactive data transformation follows the same data integration process steps as batch data integration, the key difference is that the steps are not necessarily followed in a linear fashion and typically don't require significant technical skills for completion. There are a number of companies that provide interactive data transformation tools, including Trifacta, Alteryx and Paxata. They are aiming to efficiently analyze, map and transform large volumes of data while at the same time abstracting away some of the technical complexity and processes which take place under the hood. Interactive data transformation solutions provide an integrated visual interface that combines the previously disparate steps of data analysis, data mapping and code generation/execution and data inspection. That is, if changes are made at one step (like for example renaming), the software automatically updates the preceding or following steps accordingly. Interfaces for interactive data transformation incorporate visualizations to show the user patterns and anomalies in the data so they can identify erroneous or outlying values. Once they've finished transforming the data, the system can generate executable code/logic, which can be executed or applied to subsequent similar data sets. By removing the developer from the process, interactive data transformation systems shorten the time needed to prepare and transform the data, eliminate costly errors in the interpretation of user requirements and empower business users and analysts to control their data and interact with it as needed. == Transformational languages == There are numerous languages available for performing data transformation. Many transformation languages require a grammar to be provided. In many cases, the grammar is structured using something closely resembling Backus–Naur form (BNF). There are numerous languages
KLJN Secure Key Exchange
Random-resistor-random-temperature Kirchhoff-law-Johnson-noise key exchange, also known as RRRT-KLJN or simply KLJN, is an approach for distributing cryptographic keys between two parties that claims to offer unconditional security. This claim, which has been contested, is significant, as the only other key exchange approach claiming to offer unconditional security is Quantum key distribution. The KLJN secure key exchange scheme was proposed in 2005 by Laszlo Kish and Granqvist. It has the advantage over quantum key distribution in that it can be performed over a metallic wire with just four resistors, two noise generators, and four voltage measuring devices---equipment that is low-priced and can be readily manufactured. It has the disadvantage that several attacks against KLJN have been identified which must be defended against. "Given that the amount of effort and funding that goes into Quantum Cryptography is substantial (some even mock it as a distraction from the ultimate prize which is quantum computing), it seems to me that the fact that classic thermodynamic resources allow for similar inherent security should give one pause," wrote Henning Dekant, the founder of the Quantum Computing Meetup, in April 2013. The Cybersecurity Curricula 2017, a joint project of the Association for Computing Machinery, the IEEE Computer Society, the Association for Information Systems, and the International Federation for Information Processing Technical Committee on Information Security Education (IFIP WG 11.8) recommends teaching the KLJN Scheme as part of teaching "Advanced concepts" in its knowledge unit on cryptography. == See Also/Further Reading ==
Conditional disclosure of secrets
Conditional disclosure of secrets (CDS) is a primitive, studied in information-theoretic cryptography, that allows distributed, non-communicating parties to coordinate the release of information to a third party. CDS was initially introduced for use in the context of private information retrieval, and has been related to communication complexity and non-local quantum computation. == Definition of conditional disclosure of secrets == The conditional disclosure of secrets setting involves three players; Alice, Bob and the referee. Alice receives an input x ∈ { 0 , 1 } n {\displaystyle x\in \{0,1\}^{n}} and a secret z ∈ { 0 , 1 } {\displaystyle z\in \{0,1\}} , and Bob receives a string y ∈ { 0 , 1 } n {\displaystyle y\in \{0,1\}^{n}} . A choice of Boolean function f : { 0 , 1 } 2 n → { 0 , 1 } {\displaystyle f:\{0,1\}^{2n}\rightarrow \{0,1\}} is fixed in advance and known to all players. Alice and Bob cannot communicate with one another, but share a string of random bits which we label r {\displaystyle r} . Alice and Bob compute messages m A = m A ( x , z , r ) {\displaystyle m_{A}=m_{A}(x,z,r)} and m B = m B ( y , r ) {\displaystyle m_{B}=m_{B}(y,r)} , which they send to the referee. The referee knows ( x , y ) {\displaystyle (x,y)} . A CDS protocol consists of the encoding maps applied by Alice and Bob. A protocol is said to be ϵ {\displaystyle \epsilon } -correct if, for all ( x , y ) ∈ f − 1 ( 1 ) {\displaystyle (x,y)\in f^{-1}(1)} , the referee can determine z {\displaystyle z} with probability 1 − ϵ {\displaystyle 1-\epsilon } . A protocol is said to be δ {\displaystyle \delta } -secure if, for all ( x , y ) ∈ f − 1 ( 0 ) {\displaystyle (x,y)\in f^{-1}(0)} the distribution of the messages is δ {\displaystyle \delta } close to a simulator distribution (in total variation distance), where the simulator distribution is independent of z {\displaystyle z} . The communication complexity of a CDS protocol P is the total number of bits of message sent by Alice and Bob. The CDS communication cost of a function, C D S ϵ , δ ( f ) {\displaystyle CDS_{\epsilon ,\delta }(f)} is the minimal communication cost of an ϵ {\displaystyle \epsilon } -correct, δ {\displaystyle \delta } secure protocol that implements f {\displaystyle f} . The randomness complexity and randomness cost of implementing a function in the CDS model are defined similarly, but consider the number of bits of shared random bits held by Alice and Bob. == Basic properties of the primitive == === Amplification === Supposing we have an ϵ {\displaystyle \epsilon } -correct and δ {\displaystyle \delta } -secure CDS protocol, it is known that we can find a new protocol which reduces the correctness and privacy errors at the expense of an increased communication and randomness cost. More specifically, the following theorem has been proven Theorem (Amplification). A CDS protocol for f which supports a single-bit secret with privacy and correctness error of 1/3 can be transformed into a new CDS protocol with privacy and correctness error of 2 − Ω ( k ) {\displaystyle 2^{-\Omega (k)}} and communication/randomness complexity which are larger than those of the original protocol by a multiplicative factor of O(k). In fact, somewhat more than the above theorem is true in that the size of the secret can also be made to be of length k {\displaystyle k} , while simultaneously reducing the correctness and privacy errors as above. The proof involves first encoding the secret z {\displaystyle z} into a secret sharing scheme, and then running the original CDS protocol on each share of the resulting scheme. === Closure === If a CDS protocol for a function f {\displaystyle f} is known, then certain simple modifications of f {\displaystyle f} have CDS protocols with similar efficiency. The simplest case is to consider a CDS protocol for function f {\displaystyle f} and ask for a similarly efficient protocol for the negation of f {\displaystyle f} , labelled ¬ f {\displaystyle \neg f} . This is addressed by the following theorem Theorem (CDS is closed under complement). Suppose that f has a CDS protocol with randomness cost of ρ {\displaystyle \rho } bits, communication complexity of t {\displaystyle t} bits, and privacy and correctness errors δ = ϵ = 2 − k {\displaystyle \delta =\epsilon =2^{-k}} . Then ¬ f {\displaystyle \neg f} has a CDS scheme with similar privacy and correctness errors, and randomness and communication complexity of O ( k 3 ρ 2 t + k 3 ρ 3 ) {\displaystyle O(k^{3}\rho ^{2}t+k^{3}\rho ^{3})} . The cost of a CDS protocol is also closed under formula's, in the following sense. Consider two functions f 1 {\displaystyle f_{1}} and f 2 {\displaystyle f_{2}} . Then, the communication and randomness costs of f 1 ∧ f 2 {\displaystyle f_{1}\wedge f_{2}} as well as f 1 ∨ f 2 {\displaystyle f_{1}\vee f_{2}} are not much larger than the sum of the costs for f 1 {\displaystyle f_{1}} and f 2 {\displaystyle f_{2}} . See Applebaum et al. for a precise statement. == Upper and lower bounds on communication cost == Given a function f {\displaystyle f} we would like to understand the communication and randomness costs to implement f {\displaystyle f} in the CDS setting. Towards understanding this, protocols for implementing CDS have been developed (which give an upper bound on the cost) and lower bound strategies have been developed. For most functions, there is a large gap between the known upper and lower bound, so understanding the cost of CDS remains largely an open problem. This section presents some of what is known so far about the cost of CDS. === Secret sharing based upper bound === A subject with a close relationship to CDS is secret sharing. Secret sharing constructions provide an upper bound on the cost of CDS protocols. A secret sharing scheme encodes a secret, s {\displaystyle s} into a set of shares S 1 , . . . , S n {\displaystyle S_{1},...,S_{n}} . Associated to any secret sharing scheme is an access structure, which consists of a set of authorized sets A = A 1 , . . . , A k {\displaystyle {\mathcal {A}}={A_{1},...,A_{k}}} with A i ⊆ { S 1 , . . . , S n } {\displaystyle A_{i}\subseteq \{S_{1},...,S_{n}\}} . The authorized sets are those subsets of the A i {\displaystyle A_{i}} from which it is possible to recover the secret recorded into the scheme. A succinct way to describe an access structure is in terms of a function f A : { 0 , 1 } n → { 0 , 1 } {\displaystyle f_{\mathcal {A}}:\{0,1\}^{n}\rightarrow \{0,1\}} . Each subset of the shares K [ x ] ⊂ { S 1 , . . . , S n } {\displaystyle K[x]\subset \{S_{1},...,S_{n}\}} is labelled by a string x ∈ { 0 , 1 } n {\displaystyle x\in \{0,1\}^{n}} such that x i = 1 {\displaystyle x_{i}=1} if and only if S i ∈ K {\displaystyle S_{i}\in K} . Then we define f A {\displaystyle f_{\mathcal {A}}} to be such that f A ( x ) = 1 {\displaystyle f_{\mathcal {A}}(x)=1} if and only if K [ x ] ∈ A {\displaystyle K[x]\in {\mathcal {A}}} . In words, the function f A {\displaystyle f_{\mathcal {A}}} is 1 when given an authorized subset as input, and 0 otherwise. A basic result in the theory of secret sharing is that an access structure A {\displaystyle {\mathcal {A}}} can be realized in a secret sharing scheme if and only if f A {\displaystyle f_{\mathcal {A}}} is monotone. The size of a secret sharing scheme is defined as the total number of bits in the shares S i {\displaystyle S_{i}} . For monotone functions, there is an upper bound on the communication cost in CDS for any monotone function f {\displaystyle f} in terms of the size of any secret sharing scheme with access structure given by f {\displaystyle f} , C D S ϵ = 0 , δ = 0 ( f ) ≤ S h a r i n g S i z e ( f ) {\displaystyle CDS_{\epsilon =0,\delta =0}(f)\leq SharingSize(f)} For some concrete classes of secret sharing schemes, this relationship can be extended to general (non-monotone) Boolean functions. This leads to an upper bound on CDS cost in terms of the size of any span program that computes f {\displaystyle f} , C D S ϵ = 0 , δ = 0 ( f ) ≤ S P k ( f ) {\displaystyle CDS_{\epsilon =0,\delta =0}(f)\leq SP_{k}(f)} The class of problems with efficient (polynomial size) span program is the complexity class M o d k L {\displaystyle Mod_{k}L} , so problems in this class have efficient CDS protocols. === Sub-exponential upper bounds for all functions === Using a matching vector family based construction, it has been proven that ∀ f , C D S ϵ = 0 , δ = 0 ( f ) ≤ 2 O ( n log n ) {\displaystyle \forall f,\,\,\,\,\,\,CDS_{\epsilon =0,\delta =0}(f)\leq 2^{O({\sqrt {n\log n}})}} . The technique for this proof is similar to one used to prove upper bounds on private information retrieval. This upper bound on CDS also leads to sub-exponential upper bounds on the size of a large class of secret sharing schemes. === Lower bounds from communication complexity === In a CDS protocol, the referee is given the inputs ( x , y ) {\displaystyle (x,y)} . This means it is not clear if the messages sent by Alice a
Hexagonal sampling
A multidimensional signal is a function of M independent variables where M ≥ 2 {\displaystyle M\geq 2} . Real world signals, which are generally continuous time signals, have to be discretized (sampled) in order to ensure that digital systems can be used to process the signals. It is during this process of discretization where sampling comes into picture. Although there are many ways of obtaining a discrete representation of a continuous time signal, periodic sampling is by far the simplest scheme. Theoretically, sampling can be performed with respect to any set of points. But practically, sampling is carried out with respect to a set of points that have a certain algebraic structure. Such structures are called lattices. Mathematically, the process of sampling an N {\displaystyle N} -dimensional signal can be written as: w ( t ^ ) = w ( V . n ^ ) {\displaystyle w({\hat {t}})=w(V.{\hat {n}})} where t ^ {\displaystyle {\hat {t}}} is continuous domain M-dimensional vector (M-D) that is being sampled, n ^ {\displaystyle {\hat {n}}} is an M-dimensional integer vector corresponding to indices of a sample, and V is an N × N {\displaystyle N\times N} sampling matrix. == Motivation == Multidimensional sampling provides the opportunity to look at digital methods to process signals. Some of the advantages of processing signals in the digital domain include flexibility via programmable DSP operations, signal storage without the loss of fidelity, opportunity for encryption in communication, lower sensitivity to hardware tolerances. Thus, digital methods are simultaneously both powerful and flexible. In many applications, they act as less expensive alternatives to their analog counterparts. Sometimes, the algorithms implemented using digital hardware are so complex that they have no analog counterparts. Multidimensional digital signal processing deals with processing signals represented as multidimensional arrays such as 2-D sequences or sampled images.[1] Processing these signals in the digital domain permits the use of digital hardware where in signal processing operations are specified by algorithms. As real world signals are continuous time signals, multidimensional sampling plays a crucial role in discretizing the real world signals. The discrete time signals are in turn processed using digital hardware to extract information from the signal. == Preliminaries == === Region of Support === The region outside of which the samples of the signal take zero values is known as the Region of support (ROS). From the definition, it is clear that the region of support of a signal is not unique. === Fourier transform === The Fourier transform is a tool that allows us to simplify mathematical operations performed on the signal. The transform basically represents any signal as a weighted combination of sinusoids. The Fourier and the inverse Fourier transform of an M-dimensional signal can be defined as follows: X a ( Ω ^ ) = ∫ − ∞ + ∞ x a ( t ^ ) e − j Ω ^ T t ^ d t ^ {\displaystyle X_{a}({\hat {\Omega }})=\int _{-\infty }^{+\infty }\!x_{a}({\hat {t}})e^{-j{\hat {\Omega }}^{T}{\hat {t}}}d{\hat {t}}} x a ( t ^ ) = 1 2 π M ∫ − ∞ + ∞ X ( Ω ^ ) e ( j Ω ^ T t ^ ) d Ω ^ {\displaystyle x_{a}({\hat {t}})={\frac {1}{2\pi ^{M}}}\int _{-\infty }^{+\infty }\!X({\hat {\Omega }})e^{(j{\hat {\Omega }}^{T}{\hat {t}})}\,\mathrm {d} {\hat {\Omega }}} The cap symbol ^ indicates that the operation is performed on vectors. The Fourier transform of the sampled signal is observed to be a periodic extension of the continuous time Fourier transform of the signal. This is mathematically represented as: X ( ω ) = 1 | d e t ( V ) | ∑ k X a ( Ω ^ − U k ) {\displaystyle X(\omega )={\frac {1}{|det(V)|}}\sum _{k}\!X_{a}({\hat {\Omega }}-Uk)} where ω = V ~ Ω {\displaystyle \omega ={\tilde {V}}\Omega } and U = 2 π V ~ {\displaystyle U=2\pi {\tilde {V}}} is the periodicity matrix where ~ denotes matrix transposition. Thus sampling in the spatial domain results in periodicity in the Fourier domain. === Aliasing === A band limited signal may be periodically replicated in many ways. If the replication results in an overlap between replicated regions, the signal suffers from aliasing. Under such conditions, a continuous time signal cannot be perfectly recovered from its samples. Thus in order to ensure perfect recovery of the continuous signal, there must be zero overlap multidimensional sampling of the replicated regions in the transformed domain. As in the case of 1-dimensional signals, aliasing can be prevented if the continuous time signal is sampled at an adequate sufficiently high rate. === Sampling density === It is a measure of the number of samples per unit area. It is defined as: S . D = 1 | d e t ( V ) | = | d e t ( U ) | 4 π 2 {\displaystyle S.D={\frac {1}{|det(V)|}}={\frac {|det(U)|}{4\pi ^{2}}}} . The minimum number of samples per unit area required to completely recover the continuous time signal is termed as optimal sampling density. In applications where memory or processing time are limited, emphasis must be given to minimizing the number of samples required to represent the signal completely. == Existing approaches == For a bandlimited waveform, there are infinitely many ways the signal can be sampled without producing aliases in the Fourier domain. But only two strategies are commonly used: rectangular sampling and hexagonal sampling. === Rectangular and Hexagonal sampling === In rectangular sampling, a 2-dimensional signal, for example, is sampled according to the following V matrix: V r e c t = [ T 1 0 0 T 2 ] {\displaystyle V_{rect}={\begin{bmatrix}T1&0\\0&T2\end{bmatrix}}} where T1 and T2 are the sampling periods along the horizontal and vertical direction respectively. In hexagonal sampling, the V matrix assumes the following general form: V h e x = [ T 1 T 1 − T 2 T 2 ] {\displaystyle V_{hex}={\begin{bmatrix}T1&T1\\-T2&T2\end{bmatrix}}} The difference in the efficiency of the two schemes is highlighted using a bandlimited signal with a circular region of support of radius R. The circle can be inscribed in a square of length 2R or a regular hexagon of length 2 R 3 {\displaystyle {\frac {2R}{\sqrt {3}}}} . Consequently, the region of support is now transformed into a square and a hexagon respectively. If these regions are periodically replicated in the frequency domain such that there is zero overlap between any two regions, then by periodically replicating the square region of support, we effectively sample the continuous signal on a rectangular lattice. Similarly periodic replication of the hexagonal region of support maps to sampling the continuous signal on a hexagonal lattice. From U, the periodicity matrix, we can calculate the optimal sampling density for both the rectangular and hexagonal schemes. It is found that in order to completely recover the circularly band-limited signal, the hexagonal sampling scheme requires 13.4% fewer samples than the rectangular sampling scheme. The reduction may appear to be of little significance for a 2-dimensional signal. But as the dimensionality of the signal increases, the efficiency of the hexagonal sampling scheme will become far more evident. For instance, the reduction achieved for an 8-dimensional signal is 93.8%. To highlight the importance of the obtained result [2], try and visualize an image as a collection of infinite number of samples. The primary entity responsible for vision, i.e. the photoreceptors (rods and cones) are present on the retina of all mammals. These cells are not arranged in rows and columns. By adapting a hexagonal sampling scheme, our eyes are able to process images much more efficiently. The importance of hexagonal sampling lies in the fact that the photoreceptors of the human vision system lie on a hexagonal sampling lattice and, thus, perform hexagonal sampling.[3] In fact, it can be shown that the hexagonal sampling scheme is the optimal sampling scheme for a circularly band-limited signal. == Applications == === Aliasing effects minimized by the use of optimal sampling grids === Recent advances in the CCD technology has made hexagonal sampling feasible for real life applications. Historically, because of technology constraints, detector arrays were implemented only on 2-dimensional rectangular sampling lattices with rectangular shape detectors. But the super [CCD] detector introduced by Fuji has an octagonal shaped pixel in a hexagonal grid. Theoretically, the performance of the detector was greatly increased by introducing an octagonal pixel. The number of pixels required to represent the sample was reduced and there was significant improvement in the Signal-to-Noise Ratio (SNR) when compared with that of a rectangular pixel. But the drawback of using hexagonal pixels is that the associated fill factor will be less than 82%. An alternative method would be to interpolate hexagonal pixels in such a manner that we ultimately end up with a rectangular grid. The Spot 5 satellite incorporates a
OARnet
The Ohio Academic Resources Network (OARnet) is a state-funded IT organization that provides member organizations with intrastate networking, virtualization and cloud computing applications, advanced videoconferencing, connections to regional and international research networks and the commodity Internet, colocation services, and emergency web-hosting. The OARnet network (known for a time as Third Frontier Network and later, OSCnet) is a dedicated, statewide, high-speed fiber-optic network that serves Ohio K-12 schools, college and university campuses, academic medical centers, public broadcasting stations and state and local/state government. OARnet is connected in Cleveland and Cincinnati to Internet2, the United States' most advanced nationwide research and education network. OARnet also maintains direct connections to Michigan's Merit network and OmniPoP in Chicago. OARnet offices are located on the West Campus of Ohio State University in Columbus, Ohio, United States. OARnet additionally serves as the delegated registrar for many third-level domains (both generic and locality-based) under .oh.us and some under .in.us and .ky.us. == History == A member-organization of the Ohio Technology Consortium, the technology and information division of the Ohio Board of Regents (now the Ohio Department of Higher Education), OARnet was created by the Ohio General Assembly in 1987 to provide Ohio researchers with network connectivity to the resources of the Ohio Supercomputer Center (OSC). It was recognized at the time that the network would serve a much broader audience, so when a network name was selected in early 1988, OARnet was chosen to emphasize the many uses of the network. The initial plan (1987) was to make use of a number of existing BITNET and CCnet (regional DECnet network) connections to get started. Three network (compatible) protocols were used, NJE, DECnet, and TCP/IP. The first OARnet-funded line was installed between Case Western Reserve University and John Carroll University in June 1987. Many subsequent lines at 9.6 kbit/s, 56 kbit/s, and T1 (1.544 Mbit/s) were installed with the aid of an Ohio Department of Administrative Services contract with Litel Corp. Internet (then NSFNET) connections were obtained in the spring of 1988. The non-TCP/IP protocols were soon phased out, and a process of upgrading connections took place regularly. In 1991, it was decided that OARnet would accept commercial business, at appropriate rates, for Internet connection services. Thus OARnet became one of the first Internet service providers (ISPs) in Ohio. After commercial ISPs entered the business extensively, OARnet stopped seeking new commercial accounts. A very large increase in backbone capacity occurred (planning 2000–02, installation 2003–04) when it became possible to lease optical fiber lines themselves ("dark fiber"). A new network backbone of 1,850 miles was installed at much higher capacity, and the eTech Ohio Commission and the Ohio Department of Education joined in funding and using OARnet. The fiber-optic backbone was launched in November 2004. In 2006, OARnet provided one of the first networks for delivery of live TV via Internet Protocol, known today as IPTV. OARnet served as the backbone for Ohio News Network to transmit Miami Redhawks hockey. The team finished the 2008-2009 season at the Frozen Four with a 4-3 OT loss to Boston University in the championship. It was one of the first live sports transmission deliveries over IPTV in the US. Another sharp jump in capacity occurred in 2012, when the State of Ohio funded an upgrade of the OARnet backbone to 100 Gigabits per second. Today, more than 1,500 miles of Ohio’s network backbone runs at an ultra-fast 100 Gbit/s, which was recognized by ComputerWorld in the Emerging Technology category of their 2013 Computerworld Honors Laureates program. In November 2012, Case Western Reserve University became the first member institution to connect at 100 Gbit/s to the OARnet backbone. The OARnet leaders have been: Russell M. Pitzer, director, 1987–88 Alison Brown, director, 1988–94 John Ritter, acting director, 1995 Larry Buell, acting director, 1996–97 Douglas Gale, director, 1998–2002 Alvin Stutz, director, 2002–05 Pankaj Shah, executive director, 2005–15 Paul Schopis, interim executive director, 2015–2018, executive director 2018–19 Denis Walsh, interim executive director, 2019–20 Pankaj Shah, executive director, 2020–