Science and Technology news... :: View topic

Jim Leonard · Guest

On Jul 6, 6:36 pm, jules Gilbert <jules.sto...@gmail.com> wrote:
[quote]I ran the program again this afternoon and the system works.
[/quote]
So you were able to take the output of the compressor, run it through
a decompressor, and reconstruct the original file? And verified that
the two files were exactly the same?

Scott · Guest

On Sun, 6 Jul 2008 17:47:33 -0700 (PDT), in comp.compression, biject
<biject.bwts@gmail.com> wrote:

[quote]Actually I showed how even a single byte could represent many
thousands of possible encrypted compressed messages. Even
if that one byte is all zeros.

For a simple proof take tried and ture BICOM with a one byte
file as input to the decompressor. Pick you favorite keys at least
300 of them. Notice they will most likely each decompress that single
byte to a unique message. Once you get nore than 250 uniuqe
messages you do not need to test any more the point is proved.
[/quote]
Is it not obvious to you that the keys convey additional data?

-Scott

biject · Guest

On Jul 7, 9:50 am, nob...@xmission.com (Scott) wrote:
[quote]On Sun, 6 Jul 2008 17:47:33 -0700 (PDT), in comp.compression, biject

biject.b...@gmail.com> wrote:
Actually I showed how even a single byte could represent many
thousands of possible encrypted compressed messages. Even
if that one byte is all zeros.

For a simple proof take tried and ture BICOM with a one byte
file as input to the decompressor. Pick you favorite keys at least
300 of them. Notice they will most likely each decompress that single
byte to a unique message. Once you get nore than 250 uniuqe
messages you do not need to test any more the point is proved.

Is it not obvious to you that the keys convey additional data?

-Scott
[/quote]
BINGO

But the attacker only has the one byte data file to work with. So its
not like the attacker has access to any KEY to study.

With a name like Scott you can>t be all bad:)

David A. Scott
--
My Crypto code
http://bijective.dogma.net/crypto/scott19u.zip
http://www.jim.com/jamesd/Kong/scott19u.zip old version
My Compression code http://bijective.dogma.net/
**TO EMAIL ME drop the roman "five" **
Disclaimer:I am in no way responsible for any of the statements
made in the above text. For all I know I might be drugged.
As a famous person once said "any cryptograhic
system is only as strong as its weakest link"

Scott · Guest

On Mon, 7 Jul 2008 16:26:06 -0700 (PDT), in comp.compression, biject
<biject.bwts@gmail.com> wrote:

[quote]On Jul 7, 9:50 am, nob...@xmission.com (Scott) wrote:

Is it not obvious to you that the keys convey additional data?

BINGO

But the attacker only has the one byte data file to work with. So its
not like the attacker has access to any KEY to study.
[/quote]
What you>re talking about is displacement (e.g. indexing), not compression.

I hereby claim to compress every possible 10,000-byte file to exactly zero
bytes, and to be able to decompress the file perfectly on demand. (My
compressor develops a unique encryption key of arbitrary length for each
input file, which is stored separately from the compressed data and is not
counted against the size of the compressed stream.)

Do you believe me?

[quote]With a name like Scott you can>t be all bad:)
[/quote]
But I>m not all that good.

-Scott

Industrial One · Guest

On Jul 7, 3:27 pm, Jim Leonard <MobyGa...@gmail.com> wrote:
[quote]On Jul 6, 6:36 pm, jules Gilbert <jules.sto...@gmail.com> wrote:

I ran the program again this afternoon and the system works.

So you were able to take the output of the compressor, run it through
a decompressor, and reconstruct the original file? And verified that
the two files were exactly the same?
[/quote]
Jesus christ what>s up with all them tards always emitting the
DEcompressor when announcing their revolutionary apps?

Wtf is the point of compression without being able to... decompress?
It>s damn annoying having to ask obvious questions like "you can
decompress too, right?" but knowing jews are jews, you gotta go out
your way to avoid that "I never claimed I could decompress, only that
I can bring anything down to 1 byte" disposition which you>ll get shit-
slinged at you.

James Dow Allen · Guest

On Jul 7, 7:28 pm, Mark Nelson <snorkel...@gmail.com> wrote:
[quote]No doubt there is some NG *.math.* where people are continually
posting proofs of Hilbert>s second problem,
[/quote]
My gosh! Some of us don>t even understand the pigeonhole
principle and you want us to look at Gentzen>s and Goodstein>s
theorems??

(On the topic of compressing all information to nothing,
note that the proof of Hilbert>s 2nd puzzle -- if it exists
at all and isn>t impossible -- is (probably*) embedded in
the digits of pi, though you>ll have to wade through a
lot of pornographic Mpegs to get there.)

(* - an appropriate proof of pi>s normality, if it exists,
is also embedded somewhere in the digits of pi.)

[quote]"Alice laughed: "There>s no use trying," she said; "one can>t believe
impossible things."
[/quote]
Alice obviously isn>t from post-literate North America.

Hope this helps,
James Hussein Allen

Mark Nelson · Guest

On Jul 8, 3:42 am, James Dow Allen <jdallen2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
[quote]Hope this helps,
James Hussein Allen
[/quote]
Immensely!

- Mark - http://marknelson.us

[quote]On Jul 7, 7:28 pm, Mark Nelson <snorkel...@gmail.com> wrote:

No doubt there is some NG *.math.* where people are continually
posting proofs of Hilbert>s second problem,

My gosh! Some of us don>t even understand the pigeonhole
principle and you want us to look at Gentzen>s and Goodstein>s
theorems??

(On the topic of compressing all information to nothing,
note that the proof of Hilbert>s 2nd puzzle -- if it exists
at all and isn>t impossible -- is (probably*) embedded in
the digits of pi, though you>ll have to wade through a
lot of pornographic Mpegs to get there.)

(* - an appropriate proof of pi>s normality, if it exists,
is also embedded somewhere in the digits of pi.)

"Alice laughed: "There>s no use trying," she said; "one can>t believe
impossible things."

Alice obviously isn>t from post-literate North America.

Hope this helps,
James Hussein Allen[/quote]

jules Gilbert · Guest

On Jul 7, 8:28 am, Mark Nelson <snorkel...@gmail.com> wrote:
[quote]On Jul 6, 1:44 pm, Marco Al <m.f...@student.utwente.nl> wrote:

Einstein wrote:
Unless you
believe basic math is internally inconsistent

I certainly believe that basic math is internally inconsistent.

I would suggest that you should too.

No doubt there is some NG *.math.* where people are continually
posting proofs of Hilbert>s second problem, much like our infinite
compression remoras. But despite that, it is pretty well accepted that
this has been proven impossible, at least for the arithmetic most of
us are familiar with. (Not an expert in this area, but I guess you
could compose a weaker arithmetic that was consistent and complete.
I>m sure someone has proven this.)

"Alice laughed: "There>s no use trying," she said; "one can>t believe
impossible things."

"I daresay you haven>t had much practice," said the Queen. "When I was
younger, I always did it for half an hour a day. Why, sometimes I>ve
believed as many as six impossible things before breakfast."

Alice in Wonderland.

- Mark Nelson -http://marknelson.us
[/quote]
First, I don>t like disagreeing with my good friend Mark; But I think
that mathematics was very carefully designed -- and yes, that it was
designed by the God of the Bible. At one point, commenting on our
workmanship he says that "we are fearfully and wonderfully made" --
well, Mark one reason God put so much effort into the design of
mathematics (and the rest of his universe,) is that he knew that one
day he>d be dependent on that design, because he himself would take on
human form.

But that>s an aside. I have some good news and some bad news.

One last thing about Mark: Yes, I know Mark is almost convinced that I
am not telling the truth in my posts. (Mark if you think otherwise,
please do let me know.)

I do not yet have what I have been promising, that>s the bad news -- I
do have a promise from a friend to help me this weekend, but here>s
the good news.

I have some results that some of you will find interesting in a very
favorable way.

First, a C function:

int
knt2(int q)
{
int b=0;
int x = abs(q);

while (x != 0) { b++; x>>=1; }
return b+1;
}

This is the function that I>ve been using to measure the following:

GIven a vector, say a 1MB vector of nibbles (that>s a length of 2M,)
and using the knt2 function to sum the size of each cell (notice, not
count '1' bits, but all bits,) comparing the following:

Total size BEFORE: (2MB * 4), this is by definition.

Let>s have a variable 'L' which is (in this case,) 2M*4 or 8M

and the total size after reduction, obtained by using the knt2
function is roughly 4M less, or about half the value of L.

Notice that I add one to the result of knt2, that>s simply to account
for the cost of the required sign bit.

Notice that I haven>t said anything about compression, all I have said
that I can reduce the magnitude of cells, on average, and that I have
measured the phenomena. (It is consistent.) I am hoping to
construct a compressor this weekend with a friend of mine. But as of
this moment I do not claim that I have a compressor.

I have an improvement I am trying to put into the system. Briefly I
think all of you folks have made a huge error in designing your
Huffman (and probably arithmetic emitters too,) about Huffman I am
certain, about arithmetic, I am not certain. You probably have since
the results of the best Huffman are somewhat similar to the results of
arithmetic coders.

Their>s a guy, MN knows who I mean. He works at MIT as a staff
person, A few weeks ago I asked him if he would look at my stuff and
tell Mark what he saw. Mark never agreed that he would be useful.
But this guy, K., got back to me and said that yes -- he>d love to see
the impossible.

(He works for the art department and is completely blind, deaf, and
has been dead for 20 years, No, he>s a smart guy, in good health, and
no, he doesn>t work for the art department -- he>s a senior manager
for a large network of machines and does a lot of design work on
clusters and other Linux stuff, all related to some very scientific
stuff.) Now I don>t know if MN will accept anything K. sez, and I can
understand that M. may want to see things first hand (especially if
it>s going to cost him $100 -- I won>t try to collect until MN has
seen everything firsthand.)

But I have asked my friend P, to contact K. to cause him to sit still
for a demo. But remember, the demo will just be to prove what I have
written here. I am not today claiming anything more -- although I
have found a very big flaw in the reasoning behind Huffman that I am
trying to take advantage of.

And everyone: Thomas Richter published a photo recently of a
(Japanese?) fellow waiting in line. Ask to see it.

Mark Nelson · Guest

On Jul 9, 11:35 am, jules Gilbert <jules.sto...@gmail.com> wrote:
[quote]
First, I don>t like disagreeing with my good friend Mark; But I think
that mathematics was very carefully designed -- and yes, that it was
designed by the God of the Bible. At one point, commenting on our
workmanship he says that "we are fearfully and wonderfully made" --
well, Mark one reason God put so much effort into the design of
mathematics (and the rest of his universe,) is that he knew that one
day he>d be dependent on that design, because he himself would take on
human form.
[/quote]
Well you>ve outed yourself as a Platonist, and those are the people
that really felt sucker-punched by Göedel.

Personally, I think Göedel and all those who followed made mathematics
and logic infinitely more interesting and entertaining. Giving up on
truthiness is liberating.

[quote]On Jul 7, 8:28 am, Mark Nelson <snorkel...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Jul 6, 1:44 pm, Marco Al <m.f...@student.utwente.nl> wrote:

Einstein wrote:
Unless you
believe basic math is internally inconsistent

I certainly believe that basic math is internally inconsistent.

I would suggest that you should too.

No doubt there is some NG *.math.* where people are continually
posting proofs of Hilbert>s second problem, much like our infinite
compression remoras. But despite that, it is pretty well accepted that
this has been proven impossible, at least for the arithmetic most of
us are familiar with. (Not an expert in this area, but I guess you
could compose a weaker arithmetic that was consistent and complete.
I>m sure someone has proven this.)

"Alice laughed: "There>s no use trying," she said; "one can>t believe
impossible things."

"I daresay you haven>t had much practice," said the Queen. "When I was
younger, I always did it for half an hour a day. Why, sometimes I>ve
believed as many as six impossible things before breakfast."

Alice in Wonderland.

- Mark Nelson -http://marknelson.us

First, I don>t like disagreeing with my good friend Mark; But I think
that mathematics was very carefully designed -- and yes, that it was
designed by the God of the Bible. At one point, commenting on our
workmanship he says that "we are fearfully and wonderfully made" --
well, Mark one reason God put so much effort into the design of
mathematics (and the rest of his universe,) is that he knew that one
day he>d be dependent on that design, because he himself would take on
human form.

But that>s an aside. I have some good news and some bad news.

One last thing about Mark: Yes, I know Mark is almost convinced that I
am not telling the truth in my posts. (Mark if you think otherwise,
please do let me know.)

I do not yet have what I have been promising, that>s the bad news -- I
do have a promise from a friend to help me this weekend, but here>s
the good news.

I have some results that some of you will find interesting in a very
favorable way.

First, a C function:

int
knt2(int q)
{
int b=0;
int x = abs(q);

while (x != 0) { b++; x>>=1; }
return b+1;

}

This is the function that I>ve been using to measure the following:

GIven a vector, say a 1MB vector of nibbles (that>s a length of 2M,)
and using the knt2 function to sum the size of each cell (notice, not
count '1' bits, but all bits,) comparing the following:

Total size BEFORE: (2MB * 4), this is by definition.

Let>s have a variable 'L' which is (in this case,) 2M*4 or 8M

and the total size after reduction, obtained by using the knt2
function is roughly 4M less, or about half the value of L.

Notice that I add one to the result of knt2, that>s simply to account
for the cost of the required sign bit.

Notice that I haven>t said anything about compression, all I have said
that I can reduce the magnitude of cells, on average, and that I have
measured the phenomena. (It is consistent.) I am hoping to
construct a compressor this weekend with a friend of mine. But as of
this moment I do not claim that I have a compressor.

I have an improvement I am trying to put into the system. Briefly I
think all of you folks have made a huge error in designing your
Huffman (and probably arithmetic emitters too,) about Huffman I am
certain, about arithmetic, I am not certain. You probably have since
the results of the best Huffman are somewhat similar to the results of
arithmetic coders.

Their>s a guy, MN knows who I mean. He works at MIT as a staff
person, A few weeks ago I asked him if he would look at my stuff and
tell Mark what he saw. Mark never agreed that he would be useful.
But this guy, K., got back to me and said that yes -- he>d love to see
the impossible.

(He works for the art department and is completely blind, deaf, and
has been dead for 20 years, No, he>s a smart guy, in good health, and
no, he doesn>t work for the art department -- he>s a senior manager
for a large network of machines and does a lot of design work on
clusters and other Linux stuff, all related to some very scientific
stuff.) Now I don>t know if MN will accept anything K. sez, and I can
understand that M. may want to see things first hand (especially if
it>s going to cost him $100 -- I won>t try to collect until MN has
seen everything firsthand.)

But I have asked my friend P, to contact K. to cause him to sit still
for a demo. But remember, the demo will just be to prove what I have
written here. I am not today claiming anything more -- although I
have found a very big flaw in the reasoning behind Huffman that I am
trying to take advantage of.

And everyone: Thomas Richter published a photo recently of a
(Japanese?) fellow waiting in line. Ask to see it.[/quote]

jules Gilbert · Guest

On Jul 10, 7:49 am, Mark Nelson <snorkel...@gmail.com> wrote:
[quote]On Jul 9, 11:35 am, jules Gilbert <jules.sto...@gmail.com> wrote:

First, I don>t like disagreeing with my good friend Mark; But I think
that mathematics was very carefully designed -- and yes, that it was
designed by the God of the Bible. At one point, commenting on our
workmanship he says that "we are fearfully and wonderfully made" --
well, Mark one reason God put so much effort into the design of
mathematics (and the rest of his universe,) is that he knew that one
day he>d be dependent on that design, because he himself would take on
human form.

Well you>ve outed yourself as a Platonist, and those are the people
that really felt sucker-punched by Göedel.

Personally, I think Göedel and all those who followed made mathematics
and logic infinitely more interesting and entertaining. Giving up on
truthiness is liberating.

On Jul 7, 8:28 am, Mark Nelson <snorkel...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Jul 6, 1:44 pm, Marco Al <m.f...@student.utwente.nl> wrote:

Einstein wrote:
Unless you
believe basic math is internally inconsistent

I certainly believe that basic math is internally inconsistent.

I would suggest that you should too.

No doubt there is some NG *.math.* where people are continually
posting proofs of Hilbert>s second problem, much like our infinite
compression remoras. But despite that, it is pretty well accepted that
this has been proven impossible, at least for the arithmetic most of
us are familiar with. (Not an expert in this area, but I guess you
could compose a weaker arithmetic that was consistent and complete.
I>m sure someone has proven this.)

"Alice laughed: "There>s no use trying," she said; "one can>t believe
impossible things."

"I daresay you haven>t had much practice," said the Queen. "When I was
younger, I always did it for half an hour a day. Why, sometimes I>ve
believed as many as six impossible things before breakfast."

Alice in Wonderland.

- Mark Nelson -http://marknelson.us

First, I don>t like disagreeing with my good friend Mark; But I think
that mathematics was very carefully designed -- and yes, that it was
designed by the God of the Bible. At one point, commenting on our
workmanship he says that "we are fearfully and wonderfully made" --
well, Mark one reason God put so much effort into the design of
mathematics (and the rest of his universe,) is that he knew that one
day he>d be dependent on that design, because he himself would take on
human form.

But that>s an aside. I have some good news and some bad news.

One last thing about Mark: Yes, I know Mark is almost convinced that I
am not telling the truth in my posts. (Mark if you think otherwise,
please do let me know.)

I do not yet have what I have been promising, that>s the bad news -- I
do have a promise from a friend to help me this weekend, but here>s
the good news.

I have some results that some of you will find interesting in a very
favorable way.

First, a C function:

int
knt2(int q)
{
int b=0;
int x = abs(q);

while (x != 0) { b++; x>>=1; }
return b+1;

}

This is the function that I>ve been using to measure the following:

GIven a vector, say a 1MB vector of nibbles (that>s a length of 2M,)
and using the knt2 function to sum the size of each cell (notice, not
count '1' bits, but all bits,) comparing the following:

Total size BEFORE: (2MB * 4), this is by definition.

Let>s have a variable 'L' which is (in this case,) 2M*4 or 8M

and the total size after reduction, obtained by using the knt2
function is roughly 4M less, or about half the value of L.

Notice that I add one to the result of knt2, that>s simply to account
for the cost of the required sign bit.

Notice that I haven>t said anything about compression, all I have said
that I can reduce the magnitude of cells, on average, and that I have
measured the phenomena. (It is consistent.) I am hoping to
construct a compressor this weekend with a friend of mine. But as of
this moment I do not claim that I have a compressor.

I have an improvement I am trying to put into the system. Briefly I
think all of you folks have made a huge error in designing your
Huffman (and probably arithmetic emitters too,) about Huffman I am
certain, about arithmetic, I am not certain. You probably have since
the results of the best Huffman are somewhat similar to the results of
arithmetic coders.

Their>s a guy, MN knows who I mean. He works at MIT as a staff
person, A few weeks ago I asked him if he would look at my stuff and
tell Mark what he saw. Mark never agreed that he would be useful.
But this guy, K., got back to me and said that yes -- he>d love to see
the impossible.

(He works for the art department and is completely blind, deaf, and
has been dead for 20 years, No, he>s a smart guy, in good health, and
no, he doesn>t work for the art department -- he>s a senior manager
for a large network of machines and does a lot of design work on
clusters and other Linux stuff, all related to some very scientific
stuff.) Now I don>t know if MN will accept anything K. sez, and I can
understand that M. may want to see things first hand (especially if
it>s going to cost him $100 -- I won>t try to collect until MN has
seen everything firsthand.)

But I have asked my friend P, to contact K. to cause him to sit still
for a demo. But remember, the demo will just be to prove what I have
written here. I am not today claiming anything more -- although I
have found a very big flaw in the reasoning behind Huffman that I am
trying to take advantage of.

And everyone: Thomas Richter published a photo recently of a
(Japanese?) fellow waiting in line. Ask to see it.
[/quote]
I am starting a new thread. You>ll come now, you hear!

jules Gilbert · Guest

On Jul 10, 11:31 am, jules Gilbert <jules.sto...@gmail.com> wrote:
[quote]On Jul 10, 7:49 am, Mark Nelson <snorkel...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Jul 9, 11:35 am, jules Gilbert <jules.sto...@gmail.com> wrote:

First, I don>t like disagreeing with my good friend Mark; But I think
that mathematics was very carefully designed -- and yes, that it was
designed by the God of the Bible. At one point, commenting on our
workmanship he says that "we are fearfully and wonderfully made" --
well, Mark one reason God put so much effort into the design of
mathematics (and the rest of his universe,) is that he knew that one
day he>d be dependent on that design, because he himself would take on
human form.

Well you>ve outed yourself as a Platonist, and those are the people
that really felt sucker-punched by Göedel.

Personally, I think Göedel and all those who followed made mathematics
and logic infinitely more interesting and entertaining. Giving up on
truthiness is liberating.

On Jul 7, 8:28 am, Mark Nelson <snorkel...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Jul 6, 1:44 pm, Marco Al <m.f...@student.utwente.nl> wrote:

Einstein wrote:
Unless you
believe basic math is internally inconsistent

I certainly believe that basic math is internally inconsistent.

I would suggest that you should too.

No doubt there is some NG *.math.* where people are continually
posting proofs of Hilbert>s second problem, much like our infinite
compression remoras. But despite that, it is pretty well accepted that
this has been proven impossible, at least for the arithmetic most of
us are familiar with. (Not an expert in this area, but I guess you
could compose a weaker arithmetic that was consistent and complete.
I>m sure someone has proven this.)

"Alice laughed: "There>s no use trying," she said; "one can>t believe
impossible things."

"I daresay you haven>t had much practice," said the Queen. "When I was
younger, I always did it for half an hour a day. Why, sometimes I>ve
believed as many as six impossible things before breakfast."

Alice in Wonderland.

- Mark Nelson -http://marknelson.us

First, I don>t like disagreeing with my good friend Mark; But I think
that mathematics was very carefully designed -- and yes, that it was
designed by the God of the Bible. At one point, commenting on our
workmanship he says that "we are fearfully and wonderfully made" --
well, Mark one reason God put so much effort into the design of
mathematics (and the rest of his universe,) is that he knew that one
day he>d be dependent on that design, because he himself would take on
human form.

But that>s an aside. I have some good news and some bad news.

One last thing about Mark: Yes, I know Mark is almost convinced that I
am not telling the truth in my posts. (Mark if you think otherwise,
please do let me know.)

I do not yet have what I have been promising, that>s the bad news -- I
do have a promise from a friend to help me this weekend, but here>s
the good news.

I have some results that some of you will find interesting in a very
favorable way.

First, a C function:

int
knt2(int q)
{
int b=0;
int x = abs(q);

while (x != 0) { b++; x>>=1; }
return b+1;

}

This is the function that I>ve been using to measure the following:

GIven a vector, say a 1MB vector of nibbles (that>s a length of 2M,)
and using the knt2 function to sum the size of each cell (notice, not
count '1' bits, but all bits,) comparing the following:

Total size BEFORE: (2MB * 4), this is by definition.

Let>s have a variable 'L' which is (in this case,) 2M*4 or 8M

and the total size after reduction, obtained by using the knt2
function is roughly 4M less, or about half the value of L.

Notice that I add one to the result of knt2, that>s simply to account
for the cost of the required sign bit.

Notice that I haven>t said anything about compression, all I have said
that I can reduce the magnitude of cells, on average, and that I have
measured the phenomena. (It is consistent.) I am hoping to
construct a compressor this weekend with a friend of mine. But as of
this moment I do not claim that I have a compressor.

I have an improvement I am trying to put into the system. Briefly I
think all of you folks have made a huge error in designing your
Huffman (and probably arithmetic emitters too,) about Huffman I am
certain, about arithmetic, I am not certain. You probably have since
the results of the best Huffman are somewhat similar to the results of
arithmetic coders.

Their>s a guy, MN knows who I mean. He works at MIT as a staff
person, A few weeks ago I asked him if he would look at my stuff and
tell Mark what he saw. Mark never agreed that he would be useful.
But this guy, K., got back to me and said that yes -- he>d love to see
the impossible.

(He works for the art department and is completely blind, deaf, and
has been dead for 20 years, No, he>s a smart guy, in good health, and
no, he doesn>t work for the art department -- he>s a senior manager
for a large network of machines and does a lot of design work on
clusters and other Linux stuff, all related to some very scientific
stuff.) Now I don>t know if MN will accept anything K. sez, and I can
understand that M. may want to see things first hand (especially if
it>s going to cost him $100 -- I won>t try to collect until MN has
seen everything firsthand.)

But I have asked my friend P, to contact K. to cause him to sit still
for a demo. But remember, the demo will just be to prove what I have
written here. I am not today claiming anything more -- although I
have found a very big flaw in the reasoning behind Huffman that I am
trying to take advantage of.

And everyone: Thomas Richter published a photo recently of a
(Japanese?) fellow waiting in line. Ask to see it.

I am starting a new thread. You>ll come now, you hear!
[/quote]
(This thread works just fine.)

I did establish that the flaw in Huffman that I mentioned is real, and
yes, it probably exists in arithmetic coders too. Though I have not
verified that.

But the gain isn>t as much as I had hoped, it>s at most, about 20%.
Maybe in extreme circumstances, 25%.

And I am now a whole lot more constrained in what I can do and say.
So appreciate your freedoms, while you have them...

--jg


www.GetXFactor.com Leading Technology, Science, Agriculture News and information	Part of the Identityscape.com network... getxfactor.com jmoodmusic.com smartbusinesschoices.com mintdepot.com lowfaresalways.com evangelicalview.com shoppingpodder.com soproudlywehail.com webnews.ws currenthumor.com

Science and Technology news... Forum Index -> Compression Forum	Goto page Previous 1, 2
Page 2 of 2