| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Industrial One
Guest
|
 Posted: Sun Jul 20, 2008 4:04 am Post subject: Re: compression type |
 |
|
On Jul 19, 2:03 pm, mcja...@gmail.com wrote:
[quote]
why can>t compression be reducing reorganized patterns?
[/quote]
Any kind of pattern, direct or indirect is a redundancy. If you build
a compressor based on "reorganizing patterns" it would require
exhaustive processing and not compress significantly more than already-
existing LZW techniques. I thought like you once, when I noticed that
re-arranging paragraphs/sentences in many usenet posts would make it
way more redundant (cuz of all the quotes) but when I tested the idea
(by hand) on one thread and compared it to RAR, the gain was roughly
1.5%. |
|
| |
|
 Back to top |
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun Jul 20, 2008 4:34 am Post subject: Re: compression type |
|
|
On Jul 20, 12:04 am, Industrial One <industrial_...@hotmail.com>
wrote:
[quote]On Jul 19, 2:03 pm, mcja...@gmail.com wrote:
why can>t compression be reducing reorganized patterns?
Any kind of pattern, direct or indirect is a redundancy. If you build
a compressor based on "reorganizing patterns" it would require
exhaustive processing and not compress significantly more than already-
existing LZW techniques. I thought like you once, when I noticed that
re-arranging paragraphs/sentences in many usenet posts would make it
way more redundant (cuz of all the quotes) but when I tested the idea
(by hand) on one thread and compared it to RAR, the gain was roughly
1.5%.
[/quote]
I think it misses the point of redundancy altogether though... it>s
calling abhcgdef dhbfcega dbfegcha acgdfbhe a curve about the same
size i guess if you say those letters in a sphere and make math that
draws a curve work through the letters as the token.
where those letters once in the sphere like abcdefgh is with a curve
line drawing across the letters for each way they are.. i see no
repeat occurances of a string occur there too good, but i see abcdefgh
once and a curve line in math like a few characters might be to be
each way those letters reorganize.
a very differerent proportion to see carefully.
i think if i were to try an algorithm to build this in a sphere i>d
just find the pattern maybe somewhat already there and carry on with
where the curve takes it for anything more to add that gets another
token... but given the idea of a sphere and curve just being silly at
it, it>s really for another way altogether to say it better.
but it has a fundementally different idea than reducing redundancy...
i don>t think that has to be the only way of compression working.
it>s finding a pattern reorganized, so nothing to do with reducing
redundancy at all.
see.. build in a sphere area the words or string parts but see how
the others built there too find another curve to be mostly anything
else needing a token sometimes?
it>s like so with not being redundancy reduction at all. it>s finding
a reorganization of a pattern say words in a sentence with any way to
be arranged being what says once to storing the words, and a token
many ways to say the words organized another way. it has no
equilivency to the idea of redundancy reduction at all if you think
what proportional difference this can be. for example how effective it
can be has nothing to do with how much redundancy there is. it>s
effective on account of how you can find a pattern part of another
pattern to be like saying what>s in both patterns once, but tokens
that say the pattern every which way. and most importantly to figure
what a proportion it has, it>s to find anything that>s not even part
of the pattern except some to be where a curve says that but the rest
as what>s already there.
see how that could of been compressed if every word showed up only
once in the sphere, but all to say about how it writes is curves that
draw through the sphere connecting the words... so just say math curve
designations in sphere area.it>s not just finding the longest strings
in common to be a token, it>s finding reorganized words. see it may
seem the same to say once a word and token it, but it>s not to say how
a sentence is backwards and forwards as what has the setence said once
but a different token. even though that>s a few tokens right instead?
that>s not a proportion that compares to the idea of how much
backwards what can be forwards the other way, but even not that way
but in the middle to be what has after it some of another pattern
already made for and before some of even another. like where you put
them in the sphere maybe?
it>s another proportion though besides what redundancy reduction can
even achieve in idea... because it>s not working with that limit of
seeing a pattern reorganized another way. see... it>s putting words
before and after the other way, but them to say other sentences any
way that has those words is to be only the part of the sentence that
isn>t those words before and after where in the sphere you draw a
curve that connects beginning, the middle part, then the end part as
what. |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Jim Leonard
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun Jul 20, 2008 4:46 am Post subject: Re: compression type |
|
|
On Jul 19, 3:38 pm, mcja...@gmail.com wrote:
[quote]now many curves to make up sentences with a small token for each.
[/quote]
It doesn>t matter how you>re representing the relationship between the
words, it>s all the same thing.
Typical LZ77 compression already does what you>re describing. The
"curves" are a series of codes that describe where in the dictionary
the next "words" come from.
Your idea is not new, other than the fact that it would take up more
data than necessary to "point" to other words than existing methods. |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Willem
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun Jul 20, 2008 8:11 am Post subject: Re: compression type |
|
|
mcjason@gmail.com wrote:
) but it has a fundementally different idea than reducing redundancy...
) i don>t think that has to be the only way of compression working.
Did you miss the post where I explained quite clearly that this is
a fundamentally flawed way of thinking ?
If you compress a file, then there *must have been* redundant information
in that file.
SaSW, Willem
--
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 or something..
No I>m not paranoid. You all think I>m paranoid, don>t you !
#EOT |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun Jul 20, 2008 6:24 pm Post subject: Re: compression type |
|
|
On Jul 20, 4:11 am, Willem <wil...@stack.nl> wrote:
[quote]mcja...@gmail.com wrote:
) but it has a fundementally different idea than reducing redundancy...
) i don>t think that has to be the only way of compression working.
Did you miss the post where I explained quite clearly that this is
a fundamentally flawed way of thinking ?
If you compress a file, then there *must have been* redundant information
in that file.
SaSW, Willem
--
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 or something..
No I>m not paranoid. You all think I>m paranoid, don>t you !
#EOT
[/quote]
what would happen if this though...
say a string of text another way like a connected line pattern which
simply comes out ot be a different way for whatever the text is, and
have a math that takes the idea of how it>s a connected line pattern
and find how to transform the line pattern it is into another line
pattern... but say you find another string of text where you can find
a line pattern for it that has a mathematical transform from the first
line pattern... like saying a curved line, but a transform to the
curve line instead of another curved line.. which should be in cases
less information to say another curved line. So say a curved line,
math that from that curved line is another curved line, and say that
instead of another curved line.. so a curved line and math to
transform it into another curved line, as less than both curved lines
together, as how you say two curved lines.
isn>t that far from redundant information? at least in idea of repeat
instances of same.
i betcha there must be a 50/50 odd to saying the other curve as
transformed from the first in a way that>s bigger or smaller than the
other curve. I bet ultimately.
and what a proportion that would be too... I bet 50/50 about bigger or
smaller has to be it... I bet with how much it takes to say a curve,
and how much to say a curve as a curve already but different, instead
of saying another curve.. i bet 50/50 for what can be said to see it
as a curve changed to be another curve has to be true for the size of
the math that comes out to be less information than the whole curve.
so to say text translated to the idea of a curve for the text, then
store curve as text but say more text as curve transforming math, as
what is less than another curve for more text.... that should work as
a type of compression if it were so possible, but in idea should be
somehow. different in idea than lessen repeat occurances.
not a curve like in other example though.. but I think that idea tries
to have a proportion that whims the same idea. especially how over and
over to compress should work because nothing should say devoid of
patterns in what you lay out as how you saw it before. |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Willem
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun Jul 20, 2008 7:59 pm Post subject: Re: compression type |
|
|
mcjason@gmail.com wrote:
) what would happen if this though...
If you ignore fundamental principles and simple arguments,
then you will either get laughed at or get ignored.
SaSW, Willem
--
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 or something..
No I>m not paranoid. You all think I>m paranoid, don>t you !
#EOT |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun Jul 20, 2008 9:35 pm Post subject: Re: compression type |
|
|
On Jul 20, 3:59 pm, Willem <wil...@stack.nl> wrote:
[quote]mcja...@gmail.com wrote:
) what would happen if this though...
If you ignore fundamental principles and simple arguments,
then you will either get laughed at or get ignored.
SaSW, Willem
--
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 or something..
No I>m not paranoid. You all think I>m paranoid, don>t you !
#EOT
[/quote]
What am I ignoring that>s fundamental?
I>m taking the understanding into account that compression works with
the idea of reducing redundancy...
so far the only idea I think is repeat occurances that can be said
once and explained more often right?
what a way to achieve the reduction of information... but I wouldn>t
say the only way, it>s just said so the way to be about it.
I was trying to not be far from an idea that says differerent, would
work in idea of thinking about it, and has something else to it when
it comes to what proportion can be achieved in how much information
can be reduced.
now think of a string of text... find the string of text said another
way as a shape somehow, where every word there can be would draw a
different shape. ok ?
now find another string of text, find the shape for it, now find math
that transforms one shape to another, find that in some cases the math
to transform the first shape into the second shape is smaller than the
second shape itself... so say this now, hold the first shape and the
math to transform the shape as the information...
so now in idea it>s compression not working for the idea of repeat
occurances, but for how a shape is math transform in size bigger or
smaller than another shape.
so not like there>s any math for the idea, or how even any example
tries to fare, it>s just the idea of how it>s working to achieve
compression.
see how that>s completely different than finding repeat occurances of
even the same string?
see how it doesn>t even depend on how many repeat occurances can be
found?
so in simplicity of the same proportion I think this idea of
compression would work, I don>t get stuck thinking of it anyway...
like... say for everytime abc cba or bca is found as part of the file,
you say coordinate in area and a curve where you start at the first
letter and the curve follows through across each letter. so now only
the letters "abc" are in the geometry area, but a token that says the
letters rearranged any way.
so that achieves another way besides repeat occurances of the same
string.
I think files say alot better about rearranged patterns than repeat
occurances.. and _no matter what_ it>s doing exactly redundancy
reductiotion the same as repeat occurances is too, it definitely says
that _at least_, but could only be better.
This is being different than redundant information if that only says
repeat occurances, is it not ? |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun Jul 20, 2008 9:54 pm Post subject: Re: compression type |
|
|
On Jul 20, 5:35 pm, mcja...@gmail.com wrote:
[quote]On Jul 20, 3:59 pm, Willem <wil...@stack.nl> wrote:
mcja...@gmail.com wrote:
) what would happen if this though...
If you ignore fundamental principles and simple arguments,
then you will either get laughed at or get ignored.
SaSW, Willem
--
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 or something..
No I>m not paranoid. You all think I>m paranoid, don>t you !
#EOT
What am I ignoring that>s fundamental?
I>m taking the understanding into account that compression works with
the idea of reducing redundancy...
so far the only idea I think is repeat occurances that can be said
once and explained more often right?
what a way to achieve the reduction of information... but I wouldn>t
say the only way, it>s just said so the way to be about it.
I was trying to not be far from an idea that says differerent, would
work in idea of thinking about it, and has something else to it when
it comes to what proportion can be achieved in how much information
can be reduced.
now think of a string of text... find the string of text said another
way as a shape somehow, where every word there can be would draw a
different shape. ok ?
now find another string of text, find the shape for it, now find math
that transforms one shape to another, find that in some cases the math
to transform the first shape into the second shape is smaller than the
second shape itself... so say this now, hold the first shape and the
math to transform the shape as the information...
so now in idea it>s compression not working for the idea of repeat
occurances, but for how a shape is math transform in size bigger or
smaller than another shape.
so not like there>s any math for the idea, or how even any example
tries to fare, it>s just the idea of how it>s working to achieve
compression.
see how that>s completely different than finding repeat occurances of
even the same string?
see how it doesn>t even depend on how many repeat occurances can be
found?
so in simplicity of the same proportion I think this idea of
compression would work, I don>t get stuck thinking of it anyway...
like... say for everytime abc cba or bca is found as part of the file,
you say coordinate in area and a curve where you start at the first
letter and the curve follows through across each letter. so now only
the letters "abc" are in the geometry area, but a token that says the
letters rearranged any way.
so that achieves another way besides repeat occurances of the same
string.
I think files say alot better about rearranged patterns than repeat
occurances.. and _no matter what_ it>s doing exactly redundancy
reductiotion the same as repeat occurances is too, it definitely says
that _at least_, but could only be better.
This is being different than redundant information if that only says
repeat occurances, is it not ?
[/quote]
I would think of it working like....
say first of all none of the file for real mixed with tokens, but the
idea like this....
put all of the file in a geometric area, where parts are further or
closer apart.
keep putting it in the geometric area where like if "had been here" is
already in there, it might be broken apart as words or together maybe?
but now putting "here already" in is what, so put the word "already"
like near the word "here".
so now for "had been here" and "here already" you only keep "had been
here already", because the word "here" already found but not like a
repeat occurance, but like a pattern to find another way.
so it should be like "gunsmith", "muts", "record", "buns", "thrill"
has it so there>s maybe in geometric area
g uns mi th muts record b rill
and then for those words a token that has a plot coordinate map said
shorter, like just a curved line to connect the parts in an ordering.
see how this can achieve better? it has no limit the same as finding
repeat occurances this way. |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun Jul 20, 2008 10:12 pm Post subject: Re: compression method |
|
|
On Jul 20, 5:54 pm, mcja...@gmail.com wrote:
[quote]On Jul 20, 5:35 pm, mcja...@gmail.com wrote:
On Jul 20, 3:59 pm, Willem <wil...@stack.nl> wrote:
mcja...@gmail.com wrote:
) what would happen if this though...
If you ignore fundamental principles and simple arguments,
then you will either get laughed at or get ignored.
SaSW, Willem
--
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 or something..
No I>m not paranoid. You all think I>m paranoid, don>t you !
#EOT
What am I ignoring that>s fundamental?
I>m taking the understanding into account that compression works with
the idea of reducing redundancy...
so far the only idea I think is repeat occurances that can be said
once and explained more often right?
what a way to achieve the reduction of information... but I wouldn>t
say the only way, it>s just said so the way to be about it.
I was trying to not be far from an idea that says differerent, would
work in idea of thinking about it, and has something else to it when
it comes to what proportion can be achieved in how much information
can be reduced.
now think of a string of text... find the string of text said another
way as a shape somehow, where every word there can be would draw a
different shape. ok ?
now find another string of text, find the shape for it, now find math
that transforms one shape to another, find that in some cases the math
to transform the first shape into the second shape is smaller than the
second shape itself... so say this now, hold the first shape and the
math to transform the shape as the information...
so now in idea it>s compression not working for the idea of repeat
occurances, but for how a shape is math transform in size bigger or
smaller than another shape.
so not like there>s any math for the idea, or how even any example
tries to fare, it>s just the idea of how it>s working to achieve
compression.
see how that>s completely different than finding repeat occurances of
even the same string?
see how it doesn>t even depend on how many repeat occurances can be
found?
so in simplicity of the same proportion I think this idea of
compression would work, I don>t get stuck thinking of it anyway...
like... say for everytime abc cba or bca is found as part of the file,
you say coordinate in area and a curve where you start at the first
letter and the curve follows through across each letter. so now only
the letters "abc" are in the geometry area, but a token that says the
letters rearranged any way.
so that achieves another way besides repeat occurances of the same
string.
I think files say alot better about rearranged patterns than repeat
occurances.. and _no matter what_ it>s doing exactly redundancy
reductiotion the same as repeat occurances is too, it definitely says
that _at least_, but could only be better.
This is being different than redundant information if that only says
repeat occurances, is it not ?
I would think of it working like....
say first of all none of the file for real mixed with tokens, but the
idea like this....
put all of the file in a geometric area, where parts are further or
closer apart.
keep putting it in the geometric area where like if "had been here" is
already in there, it might be broken apart as words or together maybe?
but now putting "here already" in is what, so put the word "already"
like near the word "here".
so now for "had been here" and "here already" you only keep "had been
here already", because the word "here" already found but not like a
repeat occurance, but like a pattern to find another way.
so it should be like "gunsmith", "muts", "record", "buns", "thrill"
has it so there>s maybe in geometric area
g uns mi th muts record b rill
and then for those words a token that has a plot coordinate map said
shorter, like just a curved line to connect the parts in an ordering.
see how this can achieve better? it has no limit the same as finding
repeat occurances this way.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
[/quote]
I think this idea could really go over well...
It doesn>t seem to follow the same thinking as how random data is hard
to compress with how repeat occurances won>t frequent enough to call
it any benefit....
seems like random can mostly have small strings rearranged as common
enough... to call that stored information once though and a token each
time...
and i think even once compressed in what you say is a geometric area
and tokens, you can find that to even be patterns like you can say
again. |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun Jul 20, 2008 10:27 pm Post subject: Re: compression method |
|
|
On Jul 20, 5:54 pm, mcja...@gmail.com wrote:
[quote]On Jul 20, 5:35 pm, mcja...@gmail.com wrote:
On Jul 20, 3:59 pm, Willem <wil...@stack.nl> wrote:
mcja...@gmail.com wrote:
) what would happen if this though...
If you ignore fundamental principles and simple arguments,
then you will either get laughed at or get ignored.
SaSW, Willem
--
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 or something..
No I>m not paranoid. You all think I>m paranoid, don>t you !
#EOT
What am I ignoring that>s fundamental?
I>m taking the understanding into account that compression works with
the idea of reducing redundancy...
so far the only idea I think is repeat occurances that can be said
once and explained more often right?
what a way to achieve the reduction of information... but I wouldn>t
say the only way, it>s just said so the way to be about it.
I was trying to not be far from an idea that says differerent, would
work in idea of thinking about it, and has something else to it when
it comes to what proportion can be achieved in how much information
can be reduced.
now think of a string of text... find the string of text said another
way as a shape somehow, where every word there can be would draw a
different shape. ok ?
now find another string of text, find the shape for it, now find math
that transforms one shape to another, find that in some cases the math
to transform the first shape into the second shape is smaller than the
second shape itself... so say this now, hold the first shape and the
math to transform the shape as the information...
so now in idea it>s compression not working for the idea of repeat
occurances, but for how a shape is math transform in size bigger or
smaller than another shape.
so not like there>s any math for the idea, or how even any example
tries to fare, it>s just the idea of how it>s working to achieve
compression.
see how that>s completely different than finding repeat occurances of
even the same string?
see how it doesn>t even depend on how many repeat occurances can be
found?
so in simplicity of the same proportion I think this idea of
compression would work, I don>t get stuck thinking of it anyway...
like... say for everytime abc cba or bca is found as part of the file,
you say coordinate in area and a curve where you start at the first
letter and the curve follows through across each letter. so now only
the letters "abc" are in the geometry area, but a token that says the
letters rearranged any way.
so that achieves another way besides repeat occurances of the same
string.
I think files say alot better about rearranged patterns than repeat
occurances.. and _no matter what_ it>s doing exactly redundancy
reductiotion the same as repeat occurances is too, it definitely says
that _at least_, but could only be better.
This is being different than redundant information if that only says
repeat occurances, is it not ?
I would think of it working like....
say first of all none of the file for real mixed with tokens, but the
idea like this....
put all of the file in a geometric area, where parts are further or
closer apart.
keep putting it in the geometric area where like if "had been here" is
already in there, it might be broken apart as words or together maybe?
but now putting "here already" in is what, so put the word "already"
like near the word "here".
so now for "had been here" and "here already" you only keep "had been
here already", because the word "here" already found but not like a
repeat occurance, but like a pattern to find another way.
so it should be like "gunsmith", "muts", "record", "buns", "thrill"
has it so there>s maybe in geometric area
g uns mi th muts record b rill
and then for those words a token that has a plot coordinate map said
shorter, like just a curved line to connect the parts in an ordering.
see how this can achieve better? it has no limit the same as finding
repeat occurances this way.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
[/quote]
also, I>d like to add... to think about maybe?
I>d like to find the theoretical compression limit to be said a better
way maybe...
isn>t it always possible to write a small software program, that when
run, has software runtime of generating a greater amount of
information?
so not said for any example that could work, but can>t it always be a
smaller software program that runs to output more information?
can>t a small program be like what goes through a loop of transforming
a string, inside another loop, inside another loop, inside another
loop... like all loops transform the string in some complicated math
bizarre that ends up being the output? like be a few strings being
transformed where the loop is a run-on series of string transform the
way it>s the output maybe?
so can>t any file like it>s compressed just be a small program that
runs how it outputs the file if it runs a way to compute for what
output is?
so can>t compression in idea be what goes the way of being the
smallest possible program that can run to generate output? if for
example it>s the smallest software program that can run to generate
output? nothing to say that can work, but in idea... ?
isn>t it fair to say the smallest program that can be made to run and
generate file output is the best it can be ? |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun Jul 20, 2008 10:49 pm Post subject: Re: compression method |
|
|
On Jul 20, 6:27 pm, mcja...@gmail.com wrote:
[quote]On Jul 20, 5:54 pm, mcja...@gmail.com wrote:
On Jul 20, 5:35 pm, mcja...@gmail.com wrote:
On Jul 20, 3:59 pm, Willem <wil...@stack.nl> wrote:
mcja...@gmail.com wrote:
) what would happen if this though...
If you ignore fundamental principles and simple arguments,
then you will either get laughed at or get ignored.
SaSW, Willem
--
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 or something..
No I>m not paranoid. You all think I>m paranoid, don>t you !
#EOT
What am I ignoring that>s fundamental?
I>m taking the understanding into account that compression works with
the idea of reducing redundancy...
so far the only idea I think is repeat occurances that can be said
once and explained more often right?
what a way to achieve the reduction of information... but I wouldn>t
say the only way, it>s just said so the way to be about it.
I was trying to not be far from an idea that says differerent, would
work in idea of thinking about it, and has something else to it when
it comes to what proportion can be achieved in how much information
can be reduced.
now think of a string of text... find the string of text said another
way as a shape somehow, where every word there can be would draw a
different shape. ok ?
now find another string of text, find the shape for it, now find math
that transforms one shape to another, find that in some cases the math
to transform the first shape into the second shape is smaller than the
second shape itself... so say this now, hold the first shape and the
math to transform the shape as the information...
so now in idea it>s compression not working for the idea of repeat
occurances, but for how a shape is math transform in size bigger or
smaller than another shape.
so not like there>s any math for the idea, or how even any example
tries to fare, it>s just the idea of how it>s working to achieve
compression.
see how that>s completely different than finding repeat occurances of
even the same string?
see how it doesn>t even depend on how many repeat occurances can be
found?
so in simplicity of the same proportion I think this idea of
compression would work, I don>t get stuck thinking of it anyway...
like... say for everytime abc cba or bca is found as part of the file,
you say coordinate in area and a curve where you start at the first
letter and the curve follows through across each letter. so now only
the letters "abc" are in the geometry area, but a token that says the
letters rearranged any way.
so that achieves another way besides repeat occurances of the same
string.
I think files say alot better about rearranged patterns than repeat
occurances.. and _no matter what_ it>s doing exactly redundancy
reductiotion the same as repeat occurances is too, it definitely says
that _at least_, but could only be better.
This is being different than redundant information if that only says
repeat occurances, is it not ?
I would think of it working like....
say first of all none of the file for real mixed with tokens, but the
idea like this....
put all of the file in a geometric area, where parts are further or
closer apart.
keep putting it in the geometric area where like if "had been here" is
already in there, it might be broken apart as words or together maybe?
but now putting "here already" in is what, so put the word "already"
like near the word "here".
so now for "had been here" and "here already" you only keep "had been
here already", because the word "here" already found but not like a
repeat occurance, but like a pattern to find another way.
so it should be like "gunsmith", "muts", "record", "buns", "thrill"
has it so there>s maybe in geometric area
g uns mi th muts record b rill
and then for those words a token that has a plot coordinate map said
shorter, like just a curved line to connect the parts in an ordering.
see how this can achieve better? it has no limit the same as finding
repeat occurances this way.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
also, I>d like to add... to think about maybe?
I>d like to find the theoretical compression limit to be said a better
way maybe...
isn>t it always possible to write a small software program, that when
run, has software runtime of generating a greater amount of
information?
so not said for any example that could work, but can>t it always be a
smaller software program that runs to output more information?
can>t a small program be like what goes through a loop of transforming
a string, inside another loop, inside another loop, inside another
loop... like all loops transform the string in some complicated math
bizarre that ends up being the output? like be a few strings being
transformed where the loop is a run-on series of string transform the
way it>s the output maybe?
so can>t any file like it>s compressed just be a small program that
runs how it outputs the file if it runs a way to compute for what
output is?
so can>t compression in idea be what goes the way of being the
smallest possible program that can run to generate output? if for
example it>s the smallest software program that can run to generate
output? nothing to say that can work, but in idea... ?
isn>t it fair to say the smallest program that can be made to run and
generate file output is the best it can be ?- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
[/quote]
wouldn>t this idea work...
for who says random can>t be compressed...
how about a small software program that works with the code that made
the random data in the first place, with a software equilivent of the
entroy source... like any entry source is hard to think about if it>s
so complicated but then just as good entropy source can be a poor
radio signal right? so a software machine to make the poor radio
signal but exactly the same as the point is, and then run to generate
the same random?
that could be a small software program each time, to say the idea of a
large random file being compressed.
to say it>s pretty good at being random each way but always a small
program to run in outputting the random content makes me think
different about what trend the idea of random should have in thinking
about how good compression can be. |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun Jul 20, 2008 11:01 pm Post subject: Re: compression method |
|
|
On Jul 20, 6:27 pm, mcja...@gmail.com wrote:
[quote]On Jul 20, 5:54 pm, mcja...@gmail.com wrote:
On Jul 20, 5:35 pm, mcja...@gmail.com wrote:
On Jul 20, 3:59 pm, Willem <wil...@stack.nl> wrote:
mcja...@gmail.com wrote:
) what would happen if this though...
If you ignore fundamental principles and simple arguments,
then you will either get laughed at or get ignored.
SaSW, Willem
--
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 or something..
No I>m not paranoid. You all think I>m paranoid, don>t you !
#EOT
What am I ignoring that>s fundamental?
I>m taking the understanding into account that compression works with
the idea of reducing redundancy...
so far the only idea I think is repeat occurances that can be said
once and explained more often right?
what a way to achieve the reduction of information... but I wouldn>t
say the only way, it>s just said so the way to be about it.
I was trying to not be far from an idea that says differerent, would
work in idea of thinking about it, and has something else to it when
it comes to what proportion can be achieved in how much information
can be reduced.
now think of a string of text... find the string of text said another
way as a shape somehow, where every word there can be would draw a
different shape. ok ?
now find another string of text, find the shape for it, now find math
that transforms one shape to another, find that in some cases the math
to transform the first shape into the second shape is smaller than the
second shape itself... so say this now, hold the first shape and the
math to transform the shape as the information...
so now in idea it>s compression not working for the idea of repeat
occurances, but for how a shape is math transform in size bigger or
smaller than another shape.
so not like there>s any math for the idea, or how even any example
tries to fare, it>s just the idea of how it>s working to achieve
compression.
see how that>s completely different than finding repeat occurances of
even the same string?
see how it doesn>t even depend on how many repeat occurances can be
found?
so in simplicity of the same proportion I think this idea of
compression would work, I don>t get stuck thinking of it anyway...
like... say for everytime abc cba or bca is found as part of the file,
you say coordinate in area and a curve where you start at the first
letter and the curve follows through across each letter. so now only
the letters "abc" are in the geometry area, but a token that says the
letters rearranged any way.
so that achieves another way besides repeat occurances of the same
string.
I think files say alot better about rearranged patterns than repeat
occurances.. and _no matter what_ it>s doing exactly redundancy
reductiotion the same as repeat occurances is too, it definitely says
that _at least_, but could only be better.
This is being different than redundant information if that only says
repeat occurances, is it not ?
I would think of it working like....
say first of all none of the file for real mixed with tokens, but the
idea like this....
put all of the file in a geometric area, where parts are further or
closer apart.
keep putting it in the geometric area where like if "had been here" is
already in there, it might be broken apart as words or together maybe?
but now putting "here already" in is what, so put the word "already"
like near the word "here".
so now for "had been here" and "here already" you only keep "had been
here already", because the word "here" already found but not like a
repeat occurance, but like a pattern to find another way.
so it should be like "gunsmith", "muts", "record", "buns", "thrill"
has it so there>s maybe in geometric area
g uns mi th muts record b rill
and then for those words a token that has a plot coordinate map said
shorter, like just a curved line to connect the parts in an ordering.
see how this can achieve better? it has no limit the same as finding
repeat occurances this way.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
also, I>d like to add... to think about maybe?
I>d like to find the theoretical compression limit to be said a better
way maybe...
isn>t it always possible to write a small software program, that when
run, has software runtime of generating a greater amount of
information?
so not said for any example that could work, but can>t it always be a
smaller software program that runs to output more information?
can>t a small program be like what goes through a loop of transforming
a string, inside another loop, inside another loop, inside another
loop... like all loops transform the string in some complicated math
bizarre that ends up being the output? like be a few strings being
transformed where the loop is a run-on series of string transform the
way it>s the output maybe?
so can>t any file like it>s compressed just be a small program that
runs how it outputs the file if it runs a way to compute for what
output is?
so can>t compression in idea be what goes the way of being the
smallest possible program that can run to generate output? if for
example it>s the smallest software program that can run to generate
output? nothing to say that can work, but in idea... ?
isn>t it fair to say the smallest program that can be made to run and
generate file output is the best it can be ?- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
[/quote]
I>d like to think that the small software program is the same as
saying the random data compressed, because it runs to be the same
information.
who cares if there>s no way to get it like that, that>s not the point.
the webpage is kind of hard on this idea, but such a simple analogy
must prove that idea wrong. that random is hard to compress maybe, but
certainly possible and it>s not any idea to refer to at all except in
the case of compression meaning redundancy reduction by reducing
repeat strings. I>ve already given a few examples of how that>s not
the only way to compress a file.
randomness is no problem at all to compress if I can call any random
generated content the same as a small program with the same poor radio
signal simulator that made the random as well as the same random
generating routine setup the same way. it>s saying exactly the same
for the random content, but easily it>s saying the idea if it being
compressed too. I don>t want to see how random is made another way, I
want to see the idea of random itself as good as that would always be
at saying random. Because certainly compressable, if that idea can
work.
Also look at my idea of saying file data to compress is a shape...
say it>s a shape, like find a way to convert information into a shape.
the shape doesn>t have to be bigger, in idea as many shapes for what
to say as a shape can make the shape the same size in data as what
makes for the shape... but now say this, find some other file data to
be a shape too ok? but now instead of saying other file content again,
with first shape already said for another part of data, say a
mathematical formula that transforms the shape into the other shape.
so also see how putting in a geometry area like said before would be
in idea the same. It has a different way to work than reducing repeat
occurances. |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun Jul 20, 2008 11:09 pm Post subject: Re: compression method |
|
|
On Jul 20, 6:27 pm, mcja...@gmail.com wrote:
[quote]On Jul 20, 5:54 pm, mcja...@gmail.com wrote:
On Jul 20, 5:35 pm, mcja...@gmail.com wrote:
On Jul 20, 3:59 pm, Willem <wil...@stack.nl> wrote:
mcja...@gmail.com wrote:
) what would happen if this though...
If you ignore fundamental principles and simple arguments,
then you will either get laughed at or get ignored.
SaSW, Willem
--
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 or something..
No I>m not paranoid. You all think I>m paranoid, don>t you !
#EOT
What am I ignoring that>s fundamental?
I>m taking the understanding into account that compression works with
the idea of reducing redundancy...
so far the only idea I think is repeat occurances that can be said
once and explained more often right?
what a way to achieve the reduction of information... but I wouldn>t
say the only way, it>s just said so the way to be about it.
I was trying to not be far from an idea that says differerent, would
work in idea of thinking about it, and has something else to it when
it comes to what proportion can be achieved in how much information
can be reduced.
now think of a string of text... find the string of text said another
way as a shape somehow, where every word there can be would draw a
different shape. ok ?
now find another string of text, find the shape for it, now find math
that transforms one shape to another, find that in some cases the math
to transform the first shape into the second shape is smaller than the
second shape itself... so say this now, hold the first shape and the
math to transform the shape as the information...
so now in idea it>s compression not working for the idea of repeat
occurances, but for how a shape is math transform in size bigger or
smaller than another shape.
so not like there>s any math for the idea, or how even any example
tries to fare, it>s just the idea of how it>s working to achieve
compression.
see how that>s completely different than finding repeat occurances of
even the same string?
see how it doesn>t even depend on how many repeat occurances can be
found?
so in simplicity of the same proportion I think this idea of
compression would work, I don>t get stuck thinking of it anyway...
like... say for everytime abc cba or bca is found as part of the file,
you say coordinate in area and a curve where you start at the first
letter and the curve follows through across each letter. so now only
the letters "abc" are in the geometry area, but a token that says the
letters rearranged any way.
so that achieves another way besides repeat occurances of the same
string.
I think files say alot better about rearranged patterns than repeat
occurances.. and _no matter what_ it>s doing exactly redundancy
reductiotion the same as repeat occurances is too, it definitely says
that _at least_, but could only be better.
This is being different than redundant information if that only says
repeat occurances, is it not ?
I would think of it working like....
say first of all none of the file for real mixed with tokens, but the
idea like this....
put all of the file in a geometric area, where parts are further or
closer apart.
keep putting it in the geometric area where like if "had been here" is
already in there, it might be broken apart as words or together maybe?
but now putting "here already" in is what, so put the word "already"
like near the word "here".
so now for "had been here" and "here already" you only keep "had been
here already", because the word "here" already found but not like a
repeat occurance, but like a pattern to find another way.
so it should be like "gunsmith", "muts", "record", "buns", "thrill"
has it so there>s maybe in geometric area
g uns mi th muts record b rill
and then for those words a token that has a plot coordinate map said
shorter, like just a curved line to connect the parts in an ordering.
see how this can achieve better? it has no limit the same as finding
repeat occurances this way.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
also, I>d like to add... to think about maybe?
I>d like to find the theoretical compression limit to be said a better
way maybe...
isn>t it always possible to write a small software program, that when
run, has software runtime of generating a greater amount of
information?
so not said for any example that could work, but can>t it always be a
smaller software program that runs to output more information?
can>t a small program be like what goes through a loop of transforming
a string, inside another loop, inside another loop, inside another
loop... like all loops transform the string in some complicated math
bizarre that ends up being the output? like be a few strings being
transformed where the loop is a run-on series of string transform the
way it>s the output maybe?
so can>t any file like it>s compressed just be a small program that
runs how it outputs the file if it runs a way to compute for what
output is?
so can>t compression in idea be what goes the way of being the
smallest possible program that can run to generate output? if for
example it>s the smallest software program that can run to generate
output? nothing to say that can work, but in idea... ?
isn>t it fair to say the smallest program that can be made to run and
generate file output is the best it can be ?- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
[/quote]
this might be a hard proportion to make sense...
if i can say a shape in math terms, then I can say another shape in
math terms, then I say a shape transform in math to transform a shape,
then doesn>t a math transform in size it is have a chance of being
smaller than the shape transformed to? in some examples I think so, so
it has a chance to be bigger too...
doens>t that work out having to be some shapes bigger in math to say a
shape is transformed to, and some shapes small to say in math to
transform to?
like say text is a shape, like some math curve that transforms if you
add another incentive to it. so say a curve, but then say not another
curve but how to curve the line more.. so say to curve the line more
until it>s another curve, so say instead of another curve you have one
curve and math transform to other curve.
so some cases the math would be smaller than the other curve when you
say a curve already to change?
so if i say text is a curve shape then math to transorm curve, I can
say other text with less right? |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Willem
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 21, 2008 7:52 am Post subject: Re: compression type |
|
|
mcjason@gmail.com wrote:
) What am I ignoring that>s fundamental?
)
) I>m taking the understanding into account that compression works with
) the idea of reducing redundancy...
Compression does not "work with" reducing redundancy.
Compression *IS* reducing redundancy.
Two different names for the same thing.
) so far the only idea I think is repeat occurances that can be said
) once and explained more often right?
Wrong. Reducing redundancy is not only about finding repeat occurrences.
Perhaps you should first research existing methods of redundancy reduction.
SaSW, Willem
--
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 or something..
No I>m not paranoid. You all think I>m paranoid, don>t you !
#EOT |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Thomas Richter
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 21, 2008 12:37 pm Post subject: Re: compression type |
|
|
mcjason@gmail.com schrieb:
[quote]On Jul 20, 3:59 pm, Willem <wil...@stack.nl> wrote:
mcja...@gmail.com wrote:
) what would happen if this though...
If you ignore fundamental principles and simple arguments,
then you will either get laughed at or get ignored.
SaSW, Willem
--
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 or something..
No I>m not paranoid. You all think I>m paranoid, don>t you !
#EOT
What am I ignoring that>s fundamental?
[/quote]
You claim you have found a way to reduce the size of the representation
of information, but you state that your ideas do not make use of
redundancy in the text.
No matter what I think about your ideas otherwise, what you do here *is*
redundancy reduction. (FACT!)
And, if you would look a bit further, you will find that very similar
(though less graphical) ideas are used by existing algorithms, like the
Lempel-Ziv.
In fact, I suggest that you do some reading first, just to get a broader
view on the subject, and, afterwards, go over your ideas and come back.
You>ll then probably see that your ideas and the ideas of Ziv aren>t
very far apart, just that Ziv>s algorithm is a bit more "down to earth",
and practical and implementable. The principles are similar, though.
So long,
Thomas |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
|
