Science and Technology news... :: View topic - The PERFECT EQUATION = LOSSLESS COMPRESSION!!!! TRUE!!!!

Jim Leonard · Guest

On Jun 14, 8:50 am, jacko <jackokr...@gmail.com> wrote:
[quote]do you have some proof that it don>t work in order for me to need to
admit anything?
[/quote]
That>s not the point. In scientific and academic circles, the proof
of a claim is on the person making the claim. You have provided
claims without proof. He has no obligation; you do.

jacko · Guest

On Jun 16, 3:41 pm, Jim Leonard <MobyGa...@gmail.com> wrote:
[quote]On Jun 14, 8:50 am, jacko <jackokr...@gmail.com> wrote:

do you have some proof that it don>t work in order for me to need to
admit anything?

That>s not the point. In scientific and academic circles, the proof
of a claim is on the person making the claim. You have provided
claims without proof. He has no obligation; you do.
[/quote]
ok it may not work as it has not been and may not be tested, I have no
obligation as you aren>t paying for any small nipple clamps (babies)
of mine. And as it is indeterminate, he has no proof to make any claim
it does not work.

Jim Leonard · Guest

On Jun 16, 12:01 pm, jacko <jackokr...@gmail.com> wrote:
[quote]do you have some proof that it don>t work in order for me to need to
admit anything?

That>s not the point. In scientific and academic circles, the proof
of a claim is on the person making the claim. You have provided
claims without proof. He has no obligation; you do.

ok it may not work as it has not been and may not be tested, I have no
obligation as you aren>t paying for any small nipple clamps (babies)
of mine. And as it is indeterminate, he has no proof to make any claim
it does not work.
[/quote]
Then your future direction is obvious: Stop making claims.

Industrial One · Guest

On Jun 16, 11:01 am, jacko <jackokr...@gmail.com> wrote:
[quote]ok it may not work as it has not been and may not be tested, I have no
obligation as you aren>t paying for any small nipple clamps (babies)
of mine. And as it is indeterminate, he has no proof to make any claim
it does not work.
[/quote]
He>s got a point. He elaborated many times on his work, provided
resources and hasn>t received any real challenge as of yet. I do
recall that thread in early 2005 with him and Richter (it>s how I
found this place) but... I lost track -- I>ll have to read up again
sometime when I>m not too busy trippin mad balls. But since you seem
to be back here full-time (what kinda dump in England do ya crash at
anyway, man?) you could be a lil philantrophical, starting with some
definitions:

1. Carrier stream

A modulation stream would be the input bits, the target file to be
compressed later, right? Then what>s the carrier stream?

2. Absorb

What actually happens to a stream of bits when they get "absorbed?"
What do they become?

On Aug 15 2007, 11:48 am, jacko <jackokr...@gmail.com> wrote:
[quote]so if we have this composite carrier

00100010101
10011100000
01100001100
=========> 00100000100 (composite carrier of size 3*single generator)

state machine for single generator = n bits
composite state machine 3n bits (always)
each rising_edge(clock) move to next carrier state
each falling_edge(clock) perform a modulation on current carrier bit
(the one with the required bias)
[/quote]
3. State machine ¯_¯
4. Composite state machine ¯_¯!
5. Rising_Edge(clock) and falling (yeah, i>m fucking dumb allright)

My ignorance is probably due to a vague understand of the role of the
"carrier." 'Haven>t been keen on telecommunications much.

I also got a couple other questions that I>d prefer to ask on e-mail,
if you actually check your goddamn mail, you didn>t answer it last
time when you gave a tip on a virtual zero-entropy sequence.
Otherwise, my fucktarded understanding of the subject will have to
continue here in public :/

jacko · Guest

On Jun 16, 9:47 pm, Jim Leonard <MobyGa...@gmail.com> wrote:
[quote]On Jun 16, 12:01 pm, jacko <jackokr...@gmail.com> wrote:

do you have some proof that it don>t work in order for me to need to
admit anything?

That>s not the point. In scientific and academic circles, the proof
of a claim is on the person making the claim. You have provided
claims without proof. He has no obligation; you do.

ok it may not work as it has not been and may not be tested, I have no
obligation as you aren>t paying for any small nipple clamps (babies)
of mine. And as it is indeterminate, he has no proof to make any claim
it does not work.

Then your future direction is obvious: Stop making claims.
[/quote]
So are you claiming that I should stop making claims in my best
interest? And do you have any proof of this claim?

jacko · Guest

On Jun 16, 9:53 pm, Industrial One <industrial_...@hotmail.com> wrote:
[quote]On Jun 16, 11:01 am, jacko <jackokr...@gmail.com> wrote:

ok it may not work as it has not been and may not be tested, I have no
obligation as you aren>t paying for any small nipple clamps (babies)
of mine. And as it is indeterminate, he has no proof to make any claim
it does not work.

He>s got a point. He elaborated many times on his work, provided
resources and hasn>t received any real challenge as of yet. I do
recall that thread in early 2005 with him and Richter (it>s how I
found this place) but... I lost track -- I>ll have to read up again
sometime when I>m not too busy trippin mad balls. But since you seem
to be back here full-time (what kinda dump in England do ya crash at
anyway, man?) you could be a lil philantrophical, starting with some
definitions:

1. Carrier stream

A carrier stream carries information via modulation from point to[/quote]
point. The carrier having such property as to allow for transmission
through a media between said points. Baseband information is modulated
on to a carrier using a modulation method.

In the context of the K Ring Codec, the carrier is a sequentially
generated stream which has a lower than 50:50 entropy, allowing jaxon
modulation of baseband/user information upon it without increasing the
number of bits in the sequence. As the sequence is algorithmically
generated, by a reversable algorithm, then the carrier can be rewound
to demodulate the baseband or user information.
[quote]
2. Absorb

The modulation process is absorbative for carrier entropy of a low[/quote]
enough value (>2:1) state bias. The modulation absorbs the baseband
information into the carrier stream. The said carrier stream does not
expand in size as it is algorithmically generated. And will just as
easily start from a post modulated state as though it had got there by
either modulation or by generation from the previous carrier state.
[quote]
3. State machine ¯_¯
A machine which has various defined states. Usuually identified by[/quote]
descreet integer variables of fixed precission. A clock causes the
state of the state machine to change state depending on the state and
rule set for the machine. A CPU is a state machine.
[quote]4. Composite state machine ¯_¯!
A state machine built from multiple state machines. A dual core is a[/quote]
composite state machine due to having 2 cores.
[quote]5. Rising_Edge(clock) and falling (yeah, i>m fucking dumb allright)
Google sychronous logic VHDL[/quote]

The carrier performs the role of accepting a modulation code to embed
user information into an sequence. The reversal of said sequence along
with demodulation of the user information from the carrier, restores
the user information in reverse order.

Public discussion is better. Ok

jacko · Guest

On Jun 17, 4:33 pm, Thomas Richter <t...@math.tu-berlin.de> wrote:
[quote]jacko wrote:
1. Carrier stream

A carrier stream carries information via modulation from point to
point. The carrier having such property as to allow for transmission
through a media between said points. Baseband information is modulated
on to a carrier using a modulation method.

In the context of the K Ring Codec, the carrier is a sequentially
generated stream which has a lower than 50:50 entropy,

Excuse me, but if you want to be understood, please use proper language.
What is a 50:50 entropy? That term is not defined. Entropy requires a
model (hence, an alphabet of symbols), what is it? What are the
probabilities, what is the size of the alphabet, what are the symbols,
and which entropy do you mean?
[/quote]
Yes Sum -p log2(p)
so I would say 50:50 % implies 1/2 0 1/2 1 entropy =1.(as useual most
things like mark space ratio written in 100% total)
So now we>ve worked out that binary seems to be that alphabet of my
choice, an average understanding of entropy would imply that an
entropy of less than 1/3*(2*log2(3/2)+log2(3)) is what I would be
looking for.

[quote]allowing jaxon

Sorry, what does this word mean? My english dictionary doesn>t carry it.
Mr Jackson = Jacko = me = Jaxon
modulation

Which type of modulation? This word makes sense for analog signals, but
here we have two random sources with alphabets A and B. What is a
modulation in this sense?
Jaxon Modulation (JM)[/quote]
assuming B is the carrier stream:

if(B==1) emit(A,1); //emit rather than absorb
if(B==0) if(collect(A)==1) { B=1;emit(A,0); }

That would be the JM method.

[quote]of baseband/user information upon it without increasing the
number of bits in the sequence. As the sequence is algorithmically
generated, by a reversable algorithm, then the carrier can be rewound
to demodulate the baseband or user information.

If "modulation" is a reversible algorithmic operation, yes.
[/quote]
You will find the above JM method is reversable.

[quote]2. Absorb

The modulation process is absorbative for carrier entropy of a low
enough value (>2:1) state bias.

What does "absorbative" mean? I don>t think this word is spelled
correctly, but besides that, if the "modulation" is "reversible",
nothing can be "absorbed", so what do you mean?
[/quote]
And I suppose you keep a copy of your baseband and send that too
(somehow on some other method), along with your modulated carrier, cos
you think your carrier has not absorbed enough of the data to be
allowed to just get on with transmitting it?

[quote]The modulation absorbs the baseband
information into the carrier stream. The said carrier stream does not
expand in size as it is algorithmically generated.

I don>t understand the "as it is" part of this sentence. Why would it
expand in size if it would be *not* algorithmically generated? If your
"modulation" operates on a symbol-by-symbol basis (which I don>t know
since you haven>t stated this), why should anything expand (as you get
the same number of output symbols as input symbols). IOW, this sentence
(as it stands) is not understandable.
[/quote]
It = the .carrier

If it were not algorithmically generated, it would be possible/likely
to be not reversable, and it would have to store some information
within the state machine for reconstruction (by algorithm). It has to
be algorithmically generatable to be reversable. Yes symbol by symbol
basis. Yes.

[quote]And will just as
easily start from a post modulated state as though it had got there by
either modulation or by generation from the previous carrier state.
3. State machine ¯_¯

That term is well-defined and a technical term in the field.

A machine which has various defined states. Usuually identified by
descreet integer variables of fixed precission. A clock causes the
state of the state machine to change state depending on the state and
rule set for the machine. A CPU is a state machine.

Why do you need a clock? In fact, if it only changes states due to a
clock, the state machine would be rather boring. I would rather state
that a state machine is represented by a graph of states where a
transition from one state to another (identified with the vertices of
the graph) is triggered by external events. (Not just a clock).
a synchronous clock is when the state change happens. Even inputs/[/quote]
outputs are better clock registered unless you want a real nightmare
of a logic machine.
[quote]4. Composite state machine ¯_¯!
A state machine built from multiple state machines.

Obviously, a state machine can always be composited from multiple state
machines, given a suitable definition of "composition", so what do you
mean? Also, the reverse is also true: If you pick two state machines,
and define pairs of events as the input to this group, you always get a
state machine again. Hence, what do you mean?
[/quote]
A carrier can be made up of many state machines, each producing a
small amount of entropy reduction. The resultant composite carrier can
have a larger reduction.

[quote]A dual core is a
composite state machine due to having 2 cores.

What is a core?
[/quote]
Google Intel Core 2 Duo

[quote]5. Rising_Edge(clock) and falling (yeah, i>m fucking dumb allright)
Google sychronous logic VHDL

That>s a definition from electrical engineering. I wonder why it>s
needed for state machines - are these two possible events you want to
react on?
[/quote]
It might be useful DDR et al.

[quote]The carrier performs the role of accepting a modulation code to embed
user information into an sequence. The reversal of said sequence along
with demodulation of the user information from the carrier, restores
the user information in reverse order.

Well, which says very little.
[/quote]
Which was all expressed above. I agree, it was a summary statement of
some of the preceeding statements.

[quote]Now, please explain a little more what they mean and we>re in discussion.

So long,
Thomas
[/quote]
OK

jacko · Guest

NB.
[quote]
Jaxon Modulation (JM)
assuming B is the carrier stream:

if(B==1) emit(A,1); //emit rather than absorb
if(B==0) if(collect(A)==1) { B=1;emit(A,0); }

That would be the JM method.

The properties of this modulation method do NOT depend significantly[/quote]
on the statistics or entropy of A, but only on the entropy of B. If
the entropy is greater than the critical figure supplied in my last
post then the modulation is a net emitter, while if it is less than
the supplied calculated figure, it is a net collector/absorber.

cheers.

jacko · Guest

On Jun 17, 5:36 pm, jacko <jackokr...@gmail.com> wrote:
[quote]NB.

Jaxon Modulation (JM)
assuming B is the carrier stream:

if(B==1) emit(A,1); //emit rather than absorb
if(B==0) if(collect(A)==1) { B=1;emit(A,0); }

That would be the JM method.

The properties of this modulation method do NOT depend significantly
on the statistics or entropy of A, but only on the entropy of B. If
the entropy is greater than the critical figure supplied in my last
post then the modulation is a net emitter, while if it is less than
the supplied calculated figure, it is a net collector/absorber.

cheers.
[/quote]
A consequence of this truth, is that the counting argument would imply
that it is impossible to generate stream B with such a low entropy,
from any fixed number of bits and an algorithmic generator, and for
the stream to be reversable, and modulatable (must accept 0->1
transition if 0 is most common state).

So if it is possible to generate such a B stream, then the counting
argument can not be correct in all cases. The disassociation from A
streams entropy, and reliance on an independent B streams entropy
seems a good bet.

The binomial distribution models the B stream composite parts very
well. If say p = 0.49 what size does n have to be for over 2/3rds of
the distribution histogram to fall on one side of the p=0.5 line.

This result further places the counting argument as saying no stream B
is generatable with less than entropy =1.

This is evidetially a load of bollocks, and so I infer that the
counting argument is a flawed reducto ad obserdum, which suffers from
a lack of understanding of godels theorems on proof by negation, and
its relation to no definite singular concept of opposite.

cheers.

Thomas Richter · Guest

jacko wrote:

[quote]Then your future direction is obvious: Stop making claims.

So are you claiming that I should stop making claims in my best
interest? And do you have any proof of this claim?
[/quote]
Yup. Try to file your ideas in paper form to any suitable conference
that works in this direction. Specifically, I would recommend the DCC
(Data Compression Conference), Snowbird, UT. Held every year in Spring,
because that fits perfectly into this group.

Probably if you don>t believe the judgment of this group, you might find
the judgment of referees more suitable.

All I can state from *my* experience is that if you make claims, you
better present experimental results to back them up, otherwise your
paper is not going to be accepted.

If you make extraordinary claims, it is very likely the paper wouldn>t
be accepted to begin with, unless you provide very, very, very good
results to back up your claims.

IOW, if you don>t want to provide evidence, the best you can do is just
be silent.

So long,
Thomas

Thomas Richter · Guest

jacko wrote:

[quote]1. Carrier stream

A carrier stream carries information via modulation from point to
point. The carrier having such property as to allow for transmission
through a media between said points. Baseband information is modulated
on to a carrier using a modulation method.

In the context of the K Ring Codec, the carrier is a sequentially
generated stream which has a lower than 50:50 entropy,
[/quote]
Excuse me, but if you want to be understood, please use proper language.
What is a 50:50 entropy? That term is not defined. Entropy requires a
model (hence, an alphabet of symbols), what is it? What are the
probabilities, what is the size of the alphabet, what are the symbols,
and which entropy do you mean?

[quote]allowing jaxon
[/quote]
Sorry, what does this word mean? My english dictionary doesn>t carry it.

[quote]modulation
[/quote]
Which type of modulation? This word makes sense for analog signals, but
here we have two random sources with alphabets A and B. What is a
modulation in this sense?

[quote]of baseband/user information upon it without increasing the
number of bits in the sequence. As the sequence is algorithmically
generated, by a reversable algorithm, then the carrier can be rewound
to demodulate the baseband or user information.
[/quote]
If "modulation" is a reversible algorithmic operation, yes.

[quote]2. Absorb

The modulation process is absorbative for carrier entropy of a low
enough value (>2:1) state bias.
[/quote]
What does "absorbative" mean? I don>t think this word is spelled
correctly, but besides that, if the "modulation" is "reversible",
nothing can be "absorbed", so what do you mean?

[quote]The modulation absorbs the baseband
information into the carrier stream. The said carrier stream does not
expand in size as it is algorithmically generated.
[/quote]
I don>t understand the "as it is" part of this sentence. Why would it
expand in size if it would be *not* algorithmically generated? If your
"modulation" operates on a symbol-by-symbol basis (which I don>t know
since you haven>t stated this), why should anything expand (as you get
the same number of output symbols as input symbols). IOW, this sentence
(as it stands) is not understandable.

[quote]And will just as
easily start from a post modulated state as though it had got there by
either modulation or by generation from the previous carrier state.
3. State machine ¯_¯
[/quote]
That term is well-defined and a technical term in the field.

[quote]A machine which has various defined states. Usuually identified by
descreet integer variables of fixed precission. A clock causes the
state of the state machine to change state depending on the state and
rule set for the machine. A CPU is a state machine.
[/quote]
Why do you need a clock? In fact, if it only changes states due to a
clock, the state machine would be rather boring. I would rather state
that a state machine is represented by a graph of states where a
transition from one state to another (identified with the vertices of
the graph) is triggered by external events. (Not just a clock).

[quote]4. Composite state machine ¯_¯!
A state machine built from multiple state machines.
[/quote]
Obviously, a state machine can always be composited from multiple state
machines, given a suitable definition of "composition", so what do you
mean? Also, the reverse is also true: If you pick two state machines,
and define pairs of events as the input to this group, you always get a
state machine again. Hence, what do you mean?

[quote]A dual core is a
composite state machine due to having 2 cores.
[/quote]
What is a core?

[quote]5. Rising_Edge(clock) and falling (yeah, i>m fucking dumb allright)
Google sychronous logic VHDL
[/quote]
That>s a definition from electrical engineering. I wonder why it>s
needed for state machines - are these two possible events you want to
react on?

[quote]The carrier performs the role of accepting a modulation code to embed
user information into an sequence. The reversal of said sequence along
with demodulation of the user information from the carrier, restores
the user information in reverse order.
[/quote]
Well, which says very little.

Now, please explain a little more what they mean and we>re in discussion.

So long,
Thomas

jacko · Guest

On Jun 17, 9:15 pm, Thomas Richter <t...@math.tu-berlin.de> wrote:
[quote]jacko wrote:
Excuse me, but if you want to be understood, please use proper language..
What is a 50:50 entropy? That term is not defined. Entropy requires a
model (hence, an alphabet of symbols), what is it? What are the
probabilities, what is the size of the alphabet, what are the symbols,
and which entropy do you mean?

Yes Sum -p log2(p)
so I would say 50:50 % implies 1/2 0 1/2 1 entropy =1.(as useual most
things like mark space ratio written in 100% total)

So you have a binary alphabet with two symbols of a memoryless source.
Why is this a good model of the "carrier"? Or rather, why would it make
sense to understand this as "random source"? For example, the sequence
[/quote]
A never said it was a memoryless source, in fact it has to have some
memory in order to have a lower entropy than 1. I never said the
source was random, mearly pseudo-random, I don>t think you will get
far reversing any truly random carrier source.

[quote]010101010101010101010101010101010101....

can be easily generated "algorithmically" and is even a "typical"
sequence for an i.i.d. zero-order maximum entropy two-symbol random
source. Is that a useful carrier? If so, why not pick it always (and
simplify the design), if not so, why not? Why is this a useful
description of a "carrier"?
[/quote]
You will note the source entropy of this "unideal" carrier excedds the
required entropy, and so is very unuseful as a carrier.

[quote]I think what is a bit bizarre here is that you state that your encoder
is in full control of generating the *carrier*, so it is not a random
source, so why is it necessary or useful to model it as such.
[/quote]
You could treat it as a totally ordered system, and define the source
entropy as the entropy of the sequence which is produced. It is useful
to model it as such, due to the nature of calculating entropy.

[quote]Specifically, given a method I would expect the outcome to depend
heavily on *which* "carrier" you pick, not only on its zero-order iid
random source property.
[/quote]
The carrier picked would definatly be the most important thing to
consider. If the carrier produces at least the two 0s required later
in the order of the sequence inorder to allow recollection of all
emission done for each 1 in the carrier, not much else would matter.
one of these 0s will be modulated to a 1, and the other will be left
as a 0. It the main sense, it does not matter what actual sequence is
traversed, just that traversal leads to a net collection from the
input stream which modulates the carrier.

[quote]So now we>ve worked out that binary seems to be that alphabet of my
choice, an average understanding of entropy would imply that an
entropy of less than 1/3*(2*log2(3/2)+log2(3)) is what I would be
looking for.
Which type of modulation? This word makes sense for analog signals, but
here we have two random sources with alphabets A and B. What is a
modulation in this sense?
Jaxon Modulation (JM)
assuming B is the carrier stream:

if(B==1) emit(A,1); //emit rather than absorb
if(B==0) if(collect(A)==1) { B=1;emit(A,0); }

What does "emit(A,1)" mean? Generate two output symbols, first A,then 1?
What does "collect(A)==1" mean? Why don>t you need to emit the input
signal (I suppose "A") in case "B == 0 and collect(A) != 1"?
Why would you expect the output of this be useful?
What is the carrier, what is the "source"? (I suppose A is the source,
but you never state this.)
[/quote]
A is the user data stream
emit(A,x) = "emit the binary symbol x to the beginning of straem A"
collect(A) = "collect binary symbol from the beginning of stream A"
The carrier is B, The modulation is the B=1; statement using C
language syntax.

[quote]of baseband/user information upon it without increasing the
number of bits in the sequence. As the sequence is algorithmically
generated, by a reversable algorithm, then the carrier can be rewound
to demodulate the baseband or user information.
If "modulation" is a reversible algorithmic operation, yes.

You will find the above JM method is reversable.

If you explain the above symbols, then well, I might indeed.
[/quote]
A=user data stream, B=carrier, C=language used for syntax ;)

[quote]2. Absorb
The modulation process is absorbative for carrier entropy of a low
enough value (>2:1) state bias.
What does "absorbative" mean? I don>t think this word is spelled
correctly, but besides that, if the "modulation" is "reversible",
nothing can be "absorbed", so what do you mean?

And I suppose you keep a copy of your baseband and send that too
(somehow on some other method), along with your modulated carrier, cos
you think your carrier has not absorbed enough of the data to be
allowed to just get on with transmitting it?

I don>t quite follow you - are you considering a multi-channel coding
setup? What is the "baseband" (I don>t see a definition). The "modulated
carrier" is likely the output of the above pseudo-code (which seems
incomplete.). If I count correctly, the above should expand the source
by a factor of two. Why is this a good thing to do?
[/quote]
if B 000000000000000100000000001000000010000000000000000000000000010000000000000000011000000000000
and pick user data A as any bit sequence you want.

just use that one first so you can see the advantage of a low entropy
carrier.
baseband = in TV it would be the 8MHz UK PAL I signal from DC to 8MHz,
and so by extension I would say it was the thing that will be
modulated on to a carrier.

I am not realy interested in the carrier output as a bit by bit stream
to send anywhere. I am interested in the register value storing the
current total state of the carrier generator. So that I may instance a
copy of the carrier generator elsewhere and rewind it.!!!!!

[quote]The modulation absorbs the baseband
information into the carrier stream. The said carrier stream does not
expand in size as it is algorithmically generated.
I don>t understand the "as it is" part of this sentence. Why would it
expand in size if it would be *not* algorithmically generated? If your
"modulation" operates on a symbol-by-symbol basis (which I don>t know
since you haven>t stated this), why should anything expand (as you get
the same number of output symbols as input symbols). IOW, this sentence
(as it stands) is not understandable.

It = the .carrier

If it were not algorithmically generated, it would be possible/likely
to be not reversable, and it would have to store some information
within the state machine for reconstruction (by algorithm). It has to
be algorithmically generatable to be reversable. Yes symbol by symbol
basis. Yes.

Ok, so for the time being, may I assume that the "carrier" is a
pseudo-random generated source of which the same seed is used in the
sender and the receiver, so no side information is required to
re-generate it. That seems clear enough. What does not seem clear enough
is why it has to be pseudo-random, and what the benefit of this is.
[/quote]
as the seed evolves the carrier moves forward, so sending the current
seed, allows another carrier instance to be made which has all the
modulations on it which it has passed through. Pseudo-random =>
reversability.

[quote]Obviously, a state machine can always be composited from multiple state
machines, given a suitable definition of "composition", so what do you
mean? Also, the reverse is also true: If you pick two state machines,
and define pairs of events as the input to this group, you always get a
state machine again. Hence, what do you mean?

A carrier can be made up of many state machines, each producing a
small amount of entropy reduction. The resultant composite carrier can
have a larger reduction.

Why would you believe that the above pseudo-code causes an entropy
reduction? Or at least a reduction that compensates for the factor of
two of the expansion generated by the algorithm?
[/quote]
The above code does not necessarily cause an entropy reduction. The
above code allows modulation of any entropy stream onto a carrier
which has already had its entropy reduced by algorithmic design.

sending the current seed of B is like sending B and all of A collected
upon it.

cheers.

Industrial One · Guest

Damn, missed the party again. Jack and Richter at it like the old
days, but this time without cock-nosed ape bystanders -- Guenther
committed suicide and Phil>s too busy gettin' fat.

I>ll catch up later, I need a snooze. 'Can>t get no fucking sedatives
from the doc. All this time thinkin that adulthood means makin your
own decisions, yet an adult still needs permission from a geezer to
buy pills. Total bullshit, man.

Thomas Richter · Guest

jacko wrote:

[quote]Excuse me, but if you want to be understood, please use proper language.
What is a 50:50 entropy? That term is not defined. Entropy requires a
model (hence, an alphabet of symbols), what is it? What are the
probabilities, what is the size of the alphabet, what are the symbols,
and which entropy do you mean?

Yes Sum -p log2(p)
so I would say 50:50 % implies 1/2 0 1/2 1 entropy =1.(as useual most
things like mark space ratio written in 100% total)
[/quote]
So you have a binary alphabet with two symbols of a memoryless source.
Why is this a good model of the "carrier"? Or rather, why would it make
sense to understand this as "random source"? For example, the sequence

010101010101010101010101010101010101....

can be easily generated "algorithmically" and is even a "typical"
sequence for an i.i.d. zero-order maximum entropy two-symbol random
source. Is that a useful carrier? If so, why not pick it always (and
simplify the design), if not so, why not? Why is this a useful
description of a "carrier"?

I think what is a bit bizarre here is that you state that your encoder
is in full control of generating the *carrier*, so it is not a random
source, so why is it necessary or useful to model it as such.
Specifically, given a method I would expect the outcome to depend
heavily on *which* "carrier" you pick, not only on its zero-order iid
random source property.

[quote]So now we>ve worked out that binary seems to be that alphabet of my
choice, an average understanding of entropy would imply that an
entropy of less than 1/3*(2*log2(3/2)+log2(3)) is what I would be
looking for.

Which type of modulation? This word makes sense for analog signals, but
here we have two random sources with alphabets A and B. What is a
modulation in this sense?
Jaxon Modulation (JM)
assuming B is the carrier stream:

if(B==1) emit(A,1); //emit rather than absorb
if(B==0) if(collect(A)==1) { B=1;emit(A,0); }
[/quote]
What does "emit(A,1)" mean? Generate two output symbols, first A,then 1?
What does "collect(A)==1" mean? Why don>t you need to emit the input
signal (I suppose "A") in case "B == 0 and collect(A) != 1"?
Why would you expect the output of this be useful?
What is the carrier, what is the "source"? (I suppose A is the source,
but you never state this.)

[quote]of baseband/user information upon it without increasing the
number of bits in the sequence. As the sequence is algorithmically
generated, by a reversable algorithm, then the carrier can be rewound
to demodulate the baseband or user information.
If "modulation" is a reversible algorithmic operation, yes.

You will find the above JM method is reversable.
[/quote]
If you explain the above symbols, then well, I might indeed.

[quote]2. Absorb
The modulation process is absorbative for carrier entropy of a low
enough value (>2:1) state bias.
What does "absorbative" mean? I don>t think this word is spelled
correctly, but besides that, if the "modulation" is "reversible",
nothing can be "absorbed", so what do you mean?

And I suppose you keep a copy of your baseband and send that too
(somehow on some other method), along with your modulated carrier, cos
you think your carrier has not absorbed enough of the data to be
allowed to just get on with transmitting it?
[/quote]
I don>t quite follow you - are you considering a multi-channel coding
setup? What is the "baseband" (I don>t see a definition). The "modulated
carrier" is likely the output of the above pseudo-code (which seems
incomplete.). If I count correctly, the above should expand the source
by a factor of two. Why is this a good thing to do?

[quote]The modulation absorbs the baseband
information into the carrier stream. The said carrier stream does not
expand in size as it is algorithmically generated.
I don>t understand the "as it is" part of this sentence. Why would it
expand in size if it would be *not* algorithmically generated? If your
"modulation" operates on a symbol-by-symbol basis (which I don>t know
since you haven>t stated this), why should anything expand (as you get
the same number of output symbols as input symbols). IOW, this sentence
(as it stands) is not understandable.

It = the .carrier

If it were not algorithmically generated, it would be possible/likely
to be not reversable, and it would have to store some information
within the state machine for reconstruction (by algorithm). It has to
be algorithmically generatable to be reversable. Yes symbol by symbol
basis. Yes.
[/quote]
Ok, so for the time being, may I assume that the "carrier" is a
pseudo-random generated source of which the same seed is used in the
sender and the receiver, so no side information is required to
re-generate it. That seems clear enough. What does not seem clear enough
is why it has to be pseudo-random, and what the benefit of this is.

[quote]Obviously, a state machine can always be composited from multiple state
machines, given a suitable definition of "composition", so what do you
mean? Also, the reverse is also true: If you pick two state machines,
and define pairs of events as the input to this group, you always get a
state machine again. Hence, what do you mean?

A carrier can be made up of many state machines, each producing a
small amount of entropy reduction. The resultant composite carrier can
have a larger reduction.
[/quote]
Why would you believe that the above pseudo-code causes an entropy
reduction? Or at least a reduction that compensates for the factor of
two of the expansion generated by the algorithm?

[quote]A dual core is a
composite state machine due to having 2 cores.
What is a core?

Google Intel Core 2 Duo
[/quote]
Oh, I didn>t know you talked about the CPU brand as a particular state
machine.... I do not see how *that>s* related, though, but never mind.

So long,
Thomas

jacko · Guest

On Jun 18, 12:46 am, Industrial One <industrial_...@hotmail.com>
wrote:
[quote]Damn, missed the party again. Jack and Richter at it like the old
days, but this time without cock-nosed ape bystanders -- Guenther
committed suicide and Phil>s too busy gettin' fat.
[/quote]
Rip Guenther, long live phil>s belly.

[quote]I>ll catch up later, I need a snooze. 'Can>t get no fucking sedatives
from the doc. All this time thinkin that adulthood means makin your
own decisions, yet an adult still needs permission from a geezer to
buy pills. Total bullshit, man.
[/quote]
Have you tried finding Valarium plant, as I think it grows wild. 2
leaves in hot water, no alcohol. Try a modern herbalist, they may have
t-bags of valarium root. 1 cup before sleep. This may be just in the
UK but have a go. Do less caffine!


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 Next
Page 2 of 3