In 1959, Shannon made a profound comment:
"[The duality between source and channel coding] can be
pursued further and is related to a duality between past and
future and the notions of control and knowledge. Thus we may
have knowledge of the past and cannot control it; we may control
the future but have no knowledge of it."
This comment cannot be understood in the traditional block-code
setting and as a result, has remained entirely mysterious. To
understand it, we must step back and consider end-to-end delay,
since delay is what fundamentally allows the exploitation of
the laws of large numbers to give reliability.
In channel coding, we show that while feedback often does not improve
fixed block-length reliability functions, it can significantly improve
the reliability with respect to fixed delay! (Contrary to a "theorem" by
Pinsker claiming otherwise.) A new bound, that we call the "focusing
bound," allows us to calculate the limit of what is possible when the
encoder is not ignorant of the channel's past behavior. In source
coding, the price of ignorance is demonstrated by considering what
happens when receiver side-information is withheld from the transmitter.
Block-codes perform equally poorly, but nonblock codes can use side-
information to dramatically improve the fixed-delay error exponent.
Furthermore, a closer look at the dominant error events for these cases
gives Shannon's otherwise cryptic comment a precise interpretation.
These results suggest that the traditional information theoretic
recommendation of using messages as big as possible is flawed as far as
architectural guidance is concerned. When encoders are not ignorant,
messages should be as *small* as possible while avoid integer effects,
and queueing ideas should be employed to do appropriate flow control,
even when facing hard end-to-end latency constraints.