{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.05130890052356021, 'fraction_numerical': 0.012565445026178011, 'mean_word_length': 5.45945945945946, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Shannon's formula and Hartley's rule: A mathematical coincidence?

Shannon's formula C = 12log(1+P/N) is the emblematic expression for the information capacity of a communication channel. Hartley's name is often associated with it, owing to Hartley's rule: counting the highest possible number of distinguishable values for a given amplitude A and precision ±Δ yields a similar expression C′ = log(1+A/Δ). In the information theory community, the following "historical" statements are generally well accepted: (1) Hartley put forth his rule twenty years before Shannon; (2) Shannon's formula as a fundamental tradeoff between transmission rate, bandwidth, and signal-to-noise ratio came unexpected in 1948; (3) Hartley's rule is an imprecise relation while Shannon's formula is exact; (4) Hartley's expression is not an appropriate formula for the capacity of a communication channel. We show that all these four statements are questionable, if not wrong.