Science and Technology news... :: View topic - compression

Industrial One · Guest

On May 31, 6:25 am, jules Gilbert <jules.sto...@gmail.com> wrote:
[quote]This could get interesting...

Look, I have a process, which I check using a tool I had nothing to
with building, a program written many years ago be some very respected
statisticians and communication theorists, and it says that I have an
error rate of 80%. It>s used in many labs, all across America and in
Europe.
[/quote]
For a purpose much contrary to lossless compression.

[quote]The experiment involves my sending a 4-bit signal across a channel.
One fifth of the time a program correctly guesses the answer.
[/quote]
If one was using that system to compress an e-mail that instructs a
delivery driver where to deliver the items, and the delivery guy has
to guess which one from five possible street addresses is correct,
then that system is worthless as shit, don>t ya think? It took the
driver extra hours and fuel to decompress the right address, that>s so
not cool.

[quote]I am trying to assemble this system into a complete program, and I am
pretty sure that I>m actually saving one bit for each byte I have to
"send" (ie., predict.)
[/quote]
Eh? I>d assume this is one from many systems you attempted. What about
the one in 1996? You trashed it or what when you finally compiled it
and realized it didn>t work?

[quote]And even if I did, I>d still have to solve my problem with the
patenting system we all have to contend with. 35 years ago I used to
read Computer World and applaud IBM for defending it>s patents and
going after bad guys; Well, that law has turned into a morass for us
all, unless you have a thousand lawyers to sic on a company.

Pretty much this is what Microsoft did; After they had stolen what
they were calling "double space" or something similar, and got sued
they put a thousand lawyers on the case -- and minimized their
damages.

Anyway, we compression researchers need more protection from the much
abused laws; (Notice what I am saying: it>s the laws that are screwed
up. We need protection from crooks and the law is supposed to protect
us but instead the courts (effectively,) pass laws that enable the
crooks.) This didn>t happen because the courts are bad or by design;
It>s just been the result of many years of patent litigation and I
have no idea how to fix things.

But the effect is to create an environment that even if I liked and
trusted everyone of you (and I don>t!!,) I>d still have to fight off
companies, -- not such as MS, but most certainly MS -- they seem to be
interested in tying up everyone on the planet, their just looking for
the right judge.
[/quote]
Correct me if I>m wrong but you were a neocon last time I checked and
to the best of my knowledge: conservatives favor the capitalist
ideaology that redneck country (US) was founded on. What happened to
your faith and patriotism, Jules?

Libelous litigation and all those predatory tactics you described that
Microsoft and others utilize is the reality of a capitalistic society.
Everyone for themselves. Get fucking used to it.

[quote]But in this environment, well -- predicting the future is a whole
easier.
[/quote]
Speaking of which, your stock predictions are not up to par with
something: to predict swings, you>d have to know when sales commence
on the fly. I>ve been buying two 2L coke bottles a day now for the
past couple months, but a couple days ago I bought 2L of Cplus just to
have something different. You could predict continuing sales of coca-
cola based on the fact that I>ve been buying for the last couple
months, but HOW would you know I>d still buy a pair tomorrow, or next
year? Are you sure I wouldn>t get sick of that nasty caramel-mix shit
a week/month from now? How would you know I>d buy another type of
drink once in a while like Cplus? I never bought CPlus before and
there have been times where I haven>t sipped Pepsi for a year.

You can>t, 'cuz all these outcomes are *RANDOM.*

[quote]But knocking 1-bit off of a byte. Easy enough, and remember my
process doesn>t have an extra parameters to carry around, nothing --
no hidden files, no directory entries. Nothing. It>s about as raw as
can be.

--jg
[/quote]
That>s reassuring.

Jim Leonard · Guest

On May 31, 7:25 am, jules Gilbert <jules.sto...@gmail.com> wrote:
[quote]The actual data is a byte, another process (a duplicate of the 80%-
failure process,) reduces the value to a residue, ie., numbers like 4
or 5, plus a sign bit. Pretty good I think. Then I use the
information associated with this process to resend the right-most
portion of the byte, and find that I can predict it at the receiver
side about 20% of the time.
[/quote]
There is nothing wrong with this system; it>s just that you>ve
neglected to realize that, as you approach entropy, keeping track of
the "residue" eats up any space you may have saved through prediction.

Jim Leonard · Guest

On May 31, 6:58 am, Sportman <sport...@gmail.com> wrote:
[quote]entertainment, but Uri Geller is heavily researched by scientists in
the environment of scientists with test constructed by scientists like
the Standford Research Institute (SRI) in California in November 1972.
[/quote]
Yes, and the research team admitted that they were unable to conduct
adequately controlled experiments to confirm any paranormal hypothesis
about his spoon bending performances.

[quote]In many private demonstrations URI erased or damages floppy disks
data. One of this demonstrations is documented by a witness Jitzjak
Oked, journalist of the Jerusalem Post he wrote November 21, 1984;
Geller took the disk put it on a table, looked to it and concentrated
[/quote]
Geller has been caught palming magnets. If he handled the disk, that
was all that was necessary. This is easy to research for yourself;
google "geller magnet" and the first link is to a youtube video where
you can clearly see him putting on a fake thumb (amateur magician
trick) with a magnet in it, and wonder of wonders, only then does the
compass move.

[quote]Professor Sakata tried to find out what happened and found out that 2
bits on the magnetic tape where changed and an error check stopped the
machine every time at the same point when they tried to play this
tape.
[/quote]
Right, you mean this?

http://www.stripes.com/article.asp?article=34805&section=104&archive=true

Did you read it? I>ll help you:

"The professor who supervised the test says it was intended for use in
a television show and was in no way a scientific experiment." "It was
ridiculous — almost six hours. I was very disappointed because it
really was a controlled-condition experiment."

"Uri was standing approximately two feet from the disc drive..."

"He>d get up close to the monitor and put his fist up — it was like he
was trying to influence the monitor rather than the source of the
information."

"Sakata says he has no plans to clean and analyze the tape. 'The
testing was not scientific,' he says. 'A scientific experiment must be
repeated over and over. This was for a television show.' Byrd says
Sakata already told him that he would not be writing about the
experiment for any scientific journal. 'What can you say?' Byrd said.
'It was an anomalous occurrence, and science isn>t interested in
anomalies.'"

The last quote is particularly relevant: "'I do not want to say
anything against Mr. Geller,' Sakata says, "because many people
believe in him and I do not want to destroy their dreams.'" I think
that just coddles the ignorant.

[quote]Wow, you hit Woo-Woo Credo #36 right on the head!

It>s documented and verified that Einstein had a copy of this
knowledge on his desk, Einstein niece offered mid 1960 this book to
[/quote]
You are referencing Einstein as if the mere mention of a book he
supposedly had on his desk is proof of something. Quote from the book
and we>ll talk.

Sportman · Guest

On May 31, 6:08 pm, Jim Leonard <MobyGa...@gmail.com> wrote:
[quote]Yes, and the research team admitted that they were unable to conduct
adequately controlled experiments to confirm any paranormal hypothesis
about his spoon bending performances.
I have studied the scientific controlled experiments Uri Geller did[/quote]
and my conclusion is that he can do very well what he claimed in
double blind tests without a way to fake it and with changes
1:1,000,000+ compared with guessing. That no scientist want to to put
his or her name under a document what explain that Uri Geller
succeeded in their own created tests while at the same time they can>t
explain why it happened and how Uri Geller did it is daily practice in
many scientific subject; for example that people who life close to
power line transformers get statical more cancer than people who life
further away. The scientist who research this agree it>s true but
don>t want to sign or publish any document about it only because they
can>t explain how that cancer can be created by power line
transformers.

[quote]Geller has been caught palming magnets. If he handled the disk, that
was all that was necessary. This is easy to research for yourself;
google "geller magnet" and the first link is to a youtube video where
you can clearly see him putting on a fake thumb (amateur magician
trick) with a magnet in it, and wonder of wonders, only then does the
compass move.
I agree that he could fake it with a magnetic device but people where[/quote]
round him and many sceptic.
I know that youtube movie, for some reason Uri Geller decided to start
a second career at world wide TV. This time it>s about others who try
to show tricks and because he connected his name to it and he appear
also as judge and do also some tricks himself, he also say he don>t
care how they do it. This shows has nothing to do with his old
performances he did where for a decade nobody could catch him with any
trick.

[quote]Did you read it? I>ll help you:
No I didn>t read this article before, mostly my information come from[/quote]
books or documents I have here in my personal library. It>s an
interesting link where Sakata lied that he didn>t checked it, because
he did and also put all his effort to make it a scientific experiment
down to it was not. This again is typical a scientist who don>t want
to lose face. He is right at one point the experiment he setup himself
need to be redone by others to be sure Uri Geller can do it
repeatable.

Uri has done many things nobody can repeat for example finding oil and
other resources under the ground from a helicopter or airplane.

Why Uri Geller agreed with unpaid, time and mind consuming scientific
experiments where he can lose face and lose business?

Uri Geller is since last year also spreading this old knowledge with
some Dutch people who run Staya Erusa, I saw two DVD>s of it one some
years ago and one this year. Strange enough one of the people is
Ronald Jan Heijn who as what was told me, never was interested in this
old knowledge because he could not earn money with it in the time he
run Oibibio in Amsterdam. The DVD>s are not total the original
knowledge and I don>t agree with everything but they are on the right
track.

[quote]Quote from the book and we>ll talk.
What I answered in my reply to Chris in this thread was a tinny part[/quote]
of the knowledge out of this book, a little transformed by me to make
it short and understandable.

Pete Fraser · Guest

"jules Gilbert" <jules.stocks@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:8b2410ef-72a0-43ea-9204-ee3d348111b6@r66g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...

[quote]This could get interesting...
[/quote]
Unlikely.

Thomas Richter · Guest

Sportman schrieb:
[quote]On May 30, 9:06 am, Thomas Richter <t...@math.tu-berlin.de> wrote:
No, there>s no need to disprove it here. *NOT HERE*. It>s off-topic,
simple and plain. Anyone interested in this discussion is requested to
discuss it elsewhere - and I>m (and likely most other readers here) are
definitely not interested in it.

This newsgroup is according Google groups about: data compression
algorithms and theory.
[/quote]
Exactly, and this is why you are off-topic. This is neither about data
compression, nor about algorithms, nor did you present any theory.

So long,
Thomas

Jim Leonard · Guest

On May 31, 1:08 pm, Sportman <sport...@gmail.com> wrote:
[quote]This shows has nothing to do with his old
performances he did where for a decade nobody could catch him with any
trick.
[/quote]
Wrong: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M9w7jHYriFo

This was in 1973, less than a decade after he started his schtick.

The reason you are tolerated is because, occasionally, you show signs
of being able to differentiate good science from bad science; for
example, your comments above "I agree that he could fake it with a
magnetic device" and "at one point the experiment... need[s] to be
redone by others to be sure Uri Geller can do it [repeatedly]".
Please work in that direction, instead of uselessly hoping magic to be
real.

jules Gilbert · Guest

On May 31, 11:51 am, Jim Leonard <MobyGa...@gmail.com> wrote:
[quote]On May 31, 7:25 am, jules Gilbert <jules.sto...@gmail.com> wrote:

The actual data is a byte, another process (a duplicate of the 80%-
failure process,) reduces the value to a residue, ie., numbers like 4
or 5, plus a sign bit. Pretty good I think. Then I use the
information associated with this process to resend the right-most
portion of the byte, and find that I can predict it at the receiver
side about 20% of the time.

There is nothing wrong with this system; it>s just that you>ve
neglected to realize that, as you approach entropy, keeping track of
the "residue" eats up any space you may have saved through prediction.
[/quote]
Thanks, Jim. But I have read the relevant posts, going back years,
and I have decided that I do need to be a little more persuasive. By
providing some confirming insights.

I have developed a fundamentally new class of compressor (which is
after all, a very interesting type of transform, mathematically.) But
I need to convince others that I actually have done this, and that
means demonstations and the like. Not showing the code, but at least
one or two private demos.

Recently I was invited to demonstrate the program to a US government
organization -- I really do need to "get out there" or at least send
my nominees.

I>ve been intending to make additional information (examples,)
available but I>m just so busy with a bunch of other stuff. But I do
intend to do this. In fact I spent the day preparing some files.

And I really could use some help with that book, "Probabilistic Metric
Spaces" -- I know that a few of you are excellent mathematicians, all
I am looking for is someone who can help me through two chapters. So
come on...

--jg

Sportman · Guest

On May 31, 11:04 pm, Jim Leonard <MobyGa...@gmail.com> wrote:
[quote]This was in 1973, less than a decade after he started his schtick.
Also this movie I saw before, there is no proof of a trick Uri Geller[/quote]
did, only that James Randi managed to reproduced spoon bending with
some tricks in a prepare surrounding. I wonder how Randi want to do
that standing in a hotel lobby where people bring their own spoon or
grep one from the hotel restaurant before they ask him to do a
demonstration of spoon bending as Uri Geller did many times. That Uri
Geller was confused in the TV show I can very well understand, TV
performance need heavily preparations about possible questions and
when your mind is full with that you can>t switch to a mental task in
some seconds you did not prepare for. Also any pressure is bad for
mental tasks what>s shown to us many times by soccer players who shoot
penalties as first graders during important soccer world champion
finals.

[quote]instead of uselessly hoping magic to be real.
For me it>s not magic but physics not yet fully understand by modern[/quote]
science.
Only in my surrounding I know already a hand full of people who can do
things science can>t explain. One of them explained a simple task to
test yourself and friends. Find a partner and one of them take a
number in mind between 1 and 10 and don>t say it to the other. Then
bring the heads close to each other and bring connect/press the part
left or right of the head next to the eyebrow to each other ( I don>t
know the English word for that area we call is sleep area). Then the
one who had the number start to think about the number and the other
start to count down or up (without voice/audio) slowly from 1 to 10 or
10 to 1. When the person who counter up or down feel something (sort
resistance in mind) they check it again and when sure say the number
to check if it>s the right one. You shall discover that many people
succeed in this task.

I wonder if readers here also know people in their surrounding who
when they come close to computer hardware the hardware start to get
hardware failures or the opposite when they use failing hardware it do
not fail or even is fixed later (in both cases operating actions what
can course this must be excluded).

Providence · Guest

thanks for your continued interest in this topic everyone.

let>s bring this to more static-geometry terms, that directly relate
to the fact that compression cannot be infinite.

i believe that some of you may have heard of the research going into
the e8 construct.

reference at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E8_(mathematics)

the quantum masses of the various particles, those that are
appropriated the definition 'dimensionless physical constant' are also
information. they are quantized, capable of being conversed about,
written down to degrees of precision that would, in 'simulation',
precisely convey the relationships and reactions to the other
constants.

these would need to be present at the beginning of the universe. even
if they were shifting over time, they would still need to have an
original value present to be shifted.

as i understand it, these dimensionless constants are popping up in
studies of this e8 structure, in terms of vectors over a very, very
small subset of the entirety.

this could be composed as the idea of potentially a multiverse, with
other universes that can support relational conciousness, outside of
our own universe, with different dimensionless constants that, for
example, may allow for a form of matter more integrated into
conciousness itself, being more malleable to the relational observer.

these would function as parallel universes, as time itself, understood
as the reactions between the different dimensionless constants, very
much from this purely information perspective functioning as digital
expansions of the various vectors.

this theory fits with all known observances, while simultaneously also
fitting with more 'abstract' notions about conciousness, the very
ability to 'imagine' a different set of relationships and construct
the end product into this universe over time according to the laws
here.

as we have seen with science fiction bringing a generation into a
place where space travel is not only potentially possible but actually
accomplished, with the 'seed' materials, the imaginations, then the
transcription of those imaginations by beings such as arthur c.
clarke, far before the actual mechanics and our ability to manipulate
matter/materials are present.

reference at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science_fiction

so to bring this context into topic, what occurs when we have
conciousness capable of *creating new relationships to unrelated
objects*, in such a digital construct?

take, for example, one being writing down, in full, the algorithm that
can expand into the symmetry relationships of the e8 structure (if
this structure is capable of producing the fundamental constants in
full, as well as the relationships between them).
the being then observes this algorithm, the source of its entirety,
and by observing both the algorithm and the paper it is writ on
simultaneously, 'automatically' (as this is a function of the
conciousness), has associations of the algorithm *plus* the paper.

in my mind, if infinite compression is possible, this is no big deal.

however, infinite compression is *not* possible, in *any* parallel
universe. there is *always* the quantum/quantization 'bottom line'.

so what happens? i believe at the very least the conciousness will
traverse, wholely physical, into the other vector fields, as these are
the only places where that straight up *data* can exist. the traversal
may not even be in the same 'time' period as the initiation, as the
*data* may not be yet defined in any parallel field. after the
conciousness stops processing the combined relationship (in my mind,
something as simple as a blink/REM movement would do it if the paper
and algorithm were observed simultaneously visually), their previous
time period would appear to resume, since the relationships are
identical other than the traversal moment, and will continue to
interact (those dimensionless physical constants are integrating to
create the body, and thus will be present still).

does this make sense to everyone? the ability to produce *extra*
information via relationships that must appear in the conciousness'
actual, objective reality, via a time-based, traversal to an extra-
dimensional data space?

thanks for following so far.

Jim Leonard · Guest

On May 31, 6:32 pm, jules Gilbert <jules.sto...@gmail.com> wrote:
[quote]I have developed a fundamentally new class of compressor (which is
after all, a very interesting type of transform, mathematically.) But
I need to convince others that I actually have done this, and that
means demonstations and the like. Not showing the code, but at least
one or two private demos.
[/quote]
The only test that will convince anyone is to take an uncompressable
source (such as the million random-digit file, or a file provided by
Adler, Mahoney, etc.), compress it, and then make the decompressor +
compressed data file available to everyone. This has several
benefits:

- Code + data file < size of original file proves that your system
does indeed compress any data
- Working decompression code proves the system functions and is
reversible
- You have a working system to then take public and get funding for

Remember, at no point do you make the *compressor* available, which
keeps your methods safe from theft. Even for funding, you still don>t
need to show anyone the compressor until everything is to your
satisfaction. (You will be called on to provide more examples,
however, ie. repeatable tests with different files will need to be
compressed by you and the resulting compressed data made available for
trials. Again -- you never show the compressor to anyone -- your
method is kept safe.)

Until you do that, it is somewhat pointless to make claims (unless you
are asking for help and/or advice).

jules Gilbert · Guest

On Jun 1, 1:19 am, Jim Leonard <MobyGa...@gmail.com> wrote:
[quote]On May 31, 6:32 pm, jules Gilbert <jules.sto...@gmail.com> wrote:

I have developed a fundamentally new class of compressor (which is
after all, a very interesting type of transform, mathematically.) But
I need to convince others that I actually have done this, and that
means demonstations and the like. Not showing the code, but at least
one or two private demos.

The only test that will convince anyone is to take an uncompressable
source (such as the million random-digit file, or a file provided by
Adler, Mahoney, etc.), compress it, and then make the decompressor +
compressed data file available to everyone. This has several
benefits:

- Code + data file < size of original file proves that your system
does indeed compress any data
- Working decompression code proves the system functions and is
reversible
- You have a working system to then take public and get funding for

Remember, at no point do you make the *compressor* available, which
keeps your methods safe from theft. Even for funding, you still don>t
need to show anyone the compressor until everything is to your
satisfaction. (You will be called on to provide more examples,
however, ie. repeatable tests with different files will need to be
compressed by you and the resulting compressed data made available for
trials. Again -- you never show the compressor to anyone -- your
method is kept safe.)

Until you do that, it is somewhat pointless to make claims (unless you
are asking for help and/or advice).
[/quote]
Private reply coming. But later -- you cover some interesting
points. Later though. Busy now.

jules Gilbert · Guest

On Jun 1, 1:19 am, Jim Leonard <MobyGa...@gmail.com> wrote:
[quote]On May 31, 6:32 pm, jules Gilbert <jules.sto...@gmail.com> wrote:

I have developed a fundamentally new class of compressor (which is
after all, a very interesting type of transform, mathematically.) But
I need to convince others that I actually have done this, and that
means demonstations and the like. Not showing the code, but at least
one or two private demos.

The only test that will convince anyone is to take an uncompressable
source (such as the million random-digit file, or a file provided by
Adler, Mahoney, etc.), compress it, and then make the decompressor +
compressed data file available to everyone. This has several
benefits:

- Code + data file < size of original file proves that your system
does indeed compress any data
- Working decompression code proves the system functions and is
reversible
- You have a working system to then take public and get funding for

Remember, at no point do you make the *compressor* available, which
keeps your methods safe from theft. Even for funding, you still don>t
need to show anyone the compressor until everything is to your
satisfaction. (You will be called on to provide more examples,
however, ie. repeatable tests with different files will need to be
compressed by you and the resulting compressed data made available for
trials. Again -- you never show the compressor to anyone -- your
method is kept safe.)

Until you do that, it is somewhat pointless to make claims (unless you
are asking for help and/or advice).
[/quote]
I have a lot I>m trying to do, and I should have taken a few business
courses, too. I didn>t.

Now, perhaps the wisest thing I can do (and this is about
compression,) is to quote a fragment of e-mail someone sent me
recently:

There are problems associated with attracting venture capital as well.
A venture capital firm will in most cases fire the founder and
founding team within months of a financing round. The Wall Street
Journal pointed this out in a article by Barnaby Federer from
September 30th, 2002:

"If you ask a VC what value they add, and you get them after a few
drinks, they>ll say, 'We replace the CEO' ", he said. And that, he
indicated, does not vary with the economic climate.

I don>t intend to get replaced; I intend to quit when I am no longer
needed. And yes, I>d love to have other options but right now I have
to finish this project; and that means to put some people in place who
know some things I don>t. But -- this is the most critical statement
I can make -- I have a method that really does substantially reduce
the scope of the problem, it makes incompressible data compressible.

When I say I have a completely new method I am absolutely and
completely serious. I thought of it a few months ago and a friend
coded it up after a lunch conversation -- It>s been shown to work.

I said I have a couple of private statements to make to you Jim. I>m
trying to get your email address -- just send me yours please, use
Google to get mine.

--jg

jules Gilbert · Guest

On Jun 1, 1:39 pm, "Pete Fraser" <pfra...@covad.net> wrote:
[quote]"jules Gilbert" <jules.sto...@gmail.com> wrote in message

news:867228fb-9cd8-4a9c-94ee-bcb9e6be7774@59g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...

When I say I have a completely new method
[for compressing uncompressable data] I am absolutely and
completely serious. I thought of it a few months ago and a friend
coded it up after a lunch conversation -- It>s been shown to work.

So this completely new method is distinct from the other two
completely new methods that you thought of over the last few years?

Who>d have thought that there were so many completely new methods
that were previously undiscovered (uninvented?).

Pete
[/quote]
No, what ever is wrong with you, Peter? Are you able only to be a
pest? I might as well ask "Were you raised by wolves?", because you
won>t answer any real question! In fact I do believe you know better
-- because I think I had mentioned that particular lunch scenario
previously, maybe not.

And something. You mentioned two methods. Peter if you>re keeping
count, you>re certainly not doing a very good job.

Peter, if I thought you>d actually answer technical questions
intelligently, I>d ask -- and right now I have some questions!! So
where are the folks with the doctorates in math? Because I was up
until 6AM or so Saturday morning trying to resolve a couple of topics
within my biz plan.

Mark Nelson · Guest

On May 31, 10:03 am, Industrial One <industrial_...@hotmail.com>
wrote:
[quote]Correct me if I>m wrong but you were a neocon last time I checked and
to the best of my knowledge: conservatives favor the capitalist
ideaology that redneck country (US) was founded on. What happened to
your faith and patriotism, Jules?
[/quote]
1) The term 'neocon' generally refers to a specific set of beliefs
regarding foreign policy, and really is not attached to the notion of
one being a 'conservative'.
2) Using an insulting term towards someone>s country is neither
constructive nor on topic.
3) The civil law system in the US is based on English common law, and
works within a capitalist economic system. But I think the two are
somewhat independent of one another. You could, for example, have a
similar legal system in a socialist country, or in an autocratic
country.
4) The US was founded by rich men, and they definitely wanted to keep
things that way, at least for themselves. But again, capitalism is
maybe not a direct byproduct of their work.

- Mark Nelson - http://marknelson.us


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, 3, 4, 5 Next
Page 3 of 5