Science and Technology news... :: View topic

Industrial One · Guest

And one last thing, since you haven>t posted in a couple days now:
don>t halt the discussion 'cuz of those queers above me. They aren>t
in the business of credibility, they>re in the business of
retardation. If they don>t mind waiting a week to download their gay
porn with their shitty welfare modems stained with their decaying
brown cum, that>s their problem.

Providence · Guest

hi jacko i>m still interested in that flow chart if you can plot it
out...

chris.

Industrial One · Guest

On Jun 28, 11:49 am, Industrial One <industrial_...@hotmail.com>
wrote:
[quote]Frames consisting of pseudorandom garbage would do it. As for
legitimate video that would have a high BPS, try a white/bright yellow
background with close-up flash animated object moving around.
Something like this:http://www.zshare.net/download/1436067360109890/
On the other hand, that one can decode on a pocket PC. I don>t keep
track of how CPU intensive clips are.
[/quote]
Scratch the "BPS," I meant BPP (Bits per pixel.)

Einstein · Guest

Jules once I volunteered to look at some amazing math of yours. I
emailed you, talked with you about my theories, and was willing to
sign a ND so long as I could verify.

Instead I got months worth of spam about 'buy this stock, though I am
not a stock market official or nothing, and I am not licensed my
algorithm shows this for sure.'

I also got vague information about how you were going to investors on
that and on your compression theory. The theory has been around for a
year now I take it?

I will give you the challenge then.

I will sign a nondisclosure with a clause in it. If you prove
compression which can be remade into the original product, and at
claimed levels, on RAD then I will certify it for the community as
working.

If it does not work I get to publish the entirety of the system and
proofs of how come it does not work (I will not summarily dismiss it
out of hand, I will do full proofs or if unable to prove/disprove I
will say so and NOT publish the system).

This challenge means you can either discredit yourself, or give
yourself a means to validate to the world you are actually onto
something.

Industrial One · Guest

On Jul 4, 3:48 pm, Einstein <michae...@gmail.com> wrote:
[quote]Jules once I volunteered to look at some amazing math of yours. I
emailed you, talked with you about my theories, and was willing to
sign a ND so long as I could verify.

Instead I got months worth of spam about 'buy this stock, though I am
not a stock market official or nothing, and I am not licensed my
algorithm shows this for sure.'

I also got vague information about how you were going to investors on
that and on your compression theory. The theory has been around for a
year now I take it?
[/quote]
12 years*

[quote]I will give you the challenge then.

I will sign a nondisclosure with a clause in it. If you prove
compression which can be remade into the original product, and at
claimed levels, on RAD then I will certify it for the community as
working.

If it does not work I get to publish the entirety of the system and
proofs of how come it does not work (I will not summarily dismiss it
out of hand, I will do full proofs or if unable to prove/disprove I
will say so and NOT publish the system).

This challenge means you can either discredit yourself, or give
yourself a means to validate to the world you are actually onto
something.
[/quote]
You>ll be wasting your time. I gave him access to my work as well and
he gave no useful feedback, simply reciting his own algorithm and how
it>s the only practical method (a giveaway that he>s got shit for
brains,and no idea what he>s talking about, especially if he couldn>t
decipher my piss-poor Grade 9-level math and simply tell me that a
direct-mapping technique will never work like Jacko did.)

Anywho, keep us informed.

jules Gilbert · Guest

On Jul 4, 6:48 pm, Einstein <michae...@gmail.com> wrote:
[quote]Jules once I volunteered to look at some amazing math of yours. I
emailed you, talked with you about my theories, and was willing to
sign a ND so long as I could verify.

Instead I got months worth of spam about 'buy this stock, though I am
not a stock market official or nothing, and I am not licensed my
algorithm shows this for sure.'

I also got vague information about how you were going to investors on
that and on your compression theory. The theory has been around for a
year now I take it?

I will give you the challenge then.

I will sign a nondisclosure with a clause in it. If you prove
compression which can be remade into the original product, and at
claimed levels, on RAD then I will certify it for the community as
working.

If it does not work I get to publish the entirety of the system and
proofs of how come it does not work (I will not summarily dismiss it
out of hand, I will do full proofs or if unable to prove/disprove I
will say so and NOT publish the system).

This challenge means you can either discredit yourself, or give
yourself a means to validate to the world you are actually onto
something.
[/quote]
First, the thing is "Einstein", that I don>t even know who you are...

And second, let>s say I did know for certain who you are; Without
expending serious effort on my part, that doesn>t tell me anything
about whether or not you are trustworthy.

And third, you are publicly using a dead scientist>s name without the
permission of his estate -- now I>m not a lawyer but I do know that on
occasion people get sued for such infringements. And you>re
proposing that I trust you?! No thanks.

I suppose it>s possible that you were born with the name Einstein, yes
that is plausible. So is the possibility that Lance (who uses the
name "Industrial One",) will be admitted to a university (any
university, anywhere,) and graduate Magna Cum Laude (well, even
graduate.) But I>m not holding my breath for any of this.

And Lance, please don>t start another tirade. I>m not saying anything
that others don>t already know.

But Lance, if you like you could prove me wrong. Apply to a good
Canadian school -- my guess is that you could get in, that>s not
hardest part though. If you do, my advice is that you take a part-
time load for a semester or two. So there you go, prove me wrong!
(That would be fine with me.) You>re probably plenty smart -- your
problems aren>t in that area.

However, I came here this morning to ask a favor or two... And Lance,
Einstein, and yes, Earl and that Fat-somebody I forget his name,
please don>t discourage others from actually helping.

I do have an FTP site I am loading with actual inputs and outputs --
and I am interested in obtaining assistance; At the moment I am
producing very jagged output, (the maximum extent of the output is
always one bit more than the input cell size. (And while the specific
value are random, small blocks of the data have a discernible period,
just not exact.)

I won>t be asking for NDA>s to look at the data but I will need to
know for certain who is looking. I expect to make use of the BUGS
encryption tool -- you>ll need it too to look at the data.

Einstein · Guest

Resultant data is incomprehensible without a means to undo the work.

I thought I had a formula that worked, and thanks to kind efforts of
another I found that it would produce serious loss, though a really
good compression level :P

Industrial One · Guest

On Jul 6, 6:23 am, jules Gilbert <jules.sto...@gmail.com> wrote:
[quote]I suppose it>s possible that you were born with the name Einstein, yes
that is plausible. So is the possibility that Lance (who uses the
name "Industrial One",) will be admitted to a university (any
university, anywhere,) and graduate Magna Cum Laude (well, even
graduate.) But I>m not holding my breath for any of this.
[/quote]
Forget your glasses, dimwad? Or you can>t be arsed to view his
profile?

[quote]And Lance, please don>t start another tirade. I>m not saying anything
that others don>t already know.

But Lance, if you like you could prove me wrong. Apply to a good
[/quote]
Prove what, your algorithm? Ok, lemme backtrack: basically, you rip
out the sign bits of the target stream and then have some AI app
deduce it from context. Problem is, there is no "context" in a truly
random stream, since every kind of combo is equally possible. How
about I rip out every 2nd character from this post, and see how many
you can deduce correctly.

Every other method you>ve anally given birth to is a type of direct-
mapping scheme which Jacko, an excellent mathematician (unlike you)
guarantees will never work on RAD.

Jewls, there has to be a new Tesla here sometime that succeeds in
defeating bandwidth, and it sure as f ck ain>t you. You>re just an
aging con artist, the same junkie back from the "Cockblocked queers
unleash" era circa 1968.

Industrial One · Guest

On Jul 3, 8:13 pm, Industrial One <industrial_...@hotmail.com> wrote:
[quote]On Jun 28, 11:49 am, Industrial One <industrial_...@hotmail.com
wrote:

Frames consisting of pseudorandom garbage would do it. As for
legitimate video that would have a high BPS, try a white/bright yellow
background with close-up flash animated object moving around.
Something like this:http://www.zshare.net/download/1436067360109890/
On the other hand, that one can decode on a pocket PC. I don>t keep
track of how CPU intensive clips are.

Scratch the "BPS," I meant BPP (Bits per pixel.)
[/quote]
Also, H.264 searches for patterns to later encode as vectors. The
common one is the hexagonal search or the variable hex search, so if
you got animation that avoids any pattern that can be detected
linearly (such as the video in the link) then there>s your worst case
scenario.

Guest · Posted: Sun Jul 06, 2008 5:39 pm Post subject: Re: answers please...

On Jul 6, 1:56 pm, Einstein <michae...@gmail.com> wrote:
[quote]Resultant data is incomprehensible without a means to undo the work.

I thought I had a formula that worked, and thanks to kind efforts of
another I found that it would produce serious loss, though a really
good compression level :P
[/quote]
And that is the main difference between you and JG. You in the end
admit you were wrong and then try to learn something new. JG never
admits he was wrong in the real sense of the word. Even when he says
he made a mistake instead of starting over from the start to see where
he went wrong he just backtracks a little and the following week he is
back with another set of wild claims.

BUT! It has been over a decade of work by him and his methods still
don>t work to compress-then-decompress data in a useful manner. If
you can>t learn after all these years that you don>t know what you are
doing, then how long to learn the truth?

Sharjeel · Guest

[quote]Also, H.264 searches for patterns to later encode as vectors. The
common one is the hexagonal search or the variable hex search, so if
you got animation that avoids any pattern that can be detected
linearly (such as the video in the link) then there>s your worst case
scenario.
[/quote]

I have a question: Using such video, would the motion vectors be
quite large in size or would the next frame be also coded as intra.
And that leads to my 2nd question: Is it possible that two successive
frames (frame i and frame i+1) are both I-Pictures?
Also, encoding of motion vectors might be helpful in case of overall
compression achieved by H.264 for a given video.
However, In my case, I am concerned about testing for worst case
CABAC performance only and not for complete H.264. Shouldn>t decoding
of an Intra frame provide me with a better worst case estimate (i.e.
without motion vectors)? Decoding of even a single Intra frame should
give me an idea if the computational power of my resources is enough
or not. Am I correct in thinking that way or am I missing something?
Thanks,
Sharjeel Saeed

jacko · Guest

Hi been offline for some days

[quote]Pocket pc < 10Watts

What, you can>t afford a 150-watt desktop? -.-
[/quote]
got one but windows freekin' not netting up without a big freeze.

[quote]I don>t remember being able to process any input at all. Meh.

I>m sure I put a dialog box into it which opened up.

K, I don>t remember a dialog box, I must>ve failed to compile it
properly.
The carrier is not GENERATED by the input sequence. See the Jim
example later.

Oh, the input is generated by the carrier?
[/quote]
The carrier is dependent on it>s last value, so indirectly it depends
on if a modulation was done.

[quote]On Jun 27, 4:59 pm, jacko <jackokr...@gmail.com> wrote:

Assume the independently generated carrier wil provide a low entropy
sequence 0001 0010 1000 0000 1100 0000 0100 as a start

Generated from where? And why that sequence? Aren>t we focusing on
random input data?
[/quote]
By an algorithm, but that one was out of my head and has a low enough
entropy to demonstrate modulation. Yes the data input is random, but
the carrier is not random. It has a lower entropy than 1.

[quote]then 000 takes the first 3 bits of the carrier left as 0, the carrier

I don>t get it. You>re saying the 000 is left as is (abandoned)...
[/quote]
yes they are NULL modulations.

[quote]1 is then followed by a modulated 1, and a left 0 to allow unique

...while the 1 becomes 10? This is the modulation process, moving
on...
[/quote]
Yes 1 creates a modulation, followed by a null modulation.

[quote]decode, then the next carrier 1 is followed by a modulated 1 and so

Carrier 1? Isn>t 0001 0010 1000 0000 1100 0000 0100 the input
sequence?

for the next carrier 1, and then there are the 2 zeros to allow unique

Which 2 zeros?
[/quote]
100 -> 110
1(100)00 -> 1(110)10 etc

[quote]decodeand the final 0 of the first nibble to be compressed leaves the
first zero of the fourth nibble of the carrier equal to 0.

???
[/quote]
!!!

[quote]
So the modulated carrier would go through the sequence 0001 1011 1100
0 ...which has 4 bit of information modulated onto it.

Where did 1011 come from? Didnt the original sequence start like 0001
0010 1000...?
[/quote]
There must have been a 1 modulated upon it.

[quote]
I guess there>s no point in reading the rest since I got off on a
vague start :/[/quote]

jacko · Guest

On Jun 29, 8:35 am, Jim Leonard <MobyGa...@gmail.com> wrote:
[quote]On Jun 27, 6:59 pm, jacko <jackokr...@gmail.com> wrote:

So the answer to your question is what is your prefered compact
representation of some algorithmic carrier with a low enough entropy?

My preferred representation would be any example that shows
compression of the 64-bit sequence I provided. If that>s too
complicated or long to work out manually, then feel free to tackle
just the first 32 bits.
[/quote]
obviously you haven>t quite got the number of algorithmic steps
involved in creating just one bit of the carrier.

jacko · Guest

On Jun 29, 2:47 pm, Industrial One <industrial_...@hotmail.com> wrote:
[quote]Btw, thanks Jacko for your suggestion on eliminating my sleeping
disorder. I got privileged access to some Valerian leaves and it has
helped to keep me snoozing throughout the morning and day (my night
shift starts at midnight.) The fact that I won>t have to worry about
physical dependance is also kickass. You, sir, are a fucking genius.
Respect.
[/quote]
no problems.

jacko · Guest

On Jul 1, 6:17 am, Providence <psioni...@gmail.com> wrote:
[quote]On Jun 25, 12:10 pm, jacko <jackokr...@gmail.com> wrote:

A thing to think about

If at time t=0 the data content of a system is the input stream length
i, the carrier system state length c, then the total system bit length
m is defined as

m=i+c

so at general time t, and with sufficiently low entropy from carrir c

m=i-kt+c

after sufficient t

m=c

Now the problem with applying the counting argument to such a system
is that it would imply the total complexity of the system can at most
only be c, and so it implies k HAS to be negative.

So it implies that generating a carrier with fixed size c IS
impossible.
So it further implies that all fixed size reversable sequence
generators which HOLD bit state changes (at any point in time,
independent of sequencing clock), have HIGHER entropy than a carrier
NEEDS.

And as any number of siad fixed size carriers can be majority state
composed into one equivelent carrier, then the said HIGHER entropy
must ALWAYS be 1.

This is my first claim.

jacko

hey jacko i>m wondering if you could, instead of trying to figure out
how to code this concept in linear c/c++ style code blocks, if you
could produce a functional flow chart of the design schematic.

i>m sure your pocket pc has a 'ms paint' style program.. if you could
whip up some rectangles with descriptors and input/output definitions,
that would be super.

this would allow myself to actually understand what you>re saying in
regards to the generation of the carrier 'So it implies that
generating a carrier with fixed size c IS impossible.'
[/quote]
counting argument => generation of such a carrier is impossible,
conversly generating any entropy bias which could then be used to
generate such a carrier => counting argument is invalid/false.

[quote]right now, i don>t get what you>re saying (the counting argument,
being very simple to rationalize, is overriding your argument.. i
literally cannot see what you>re saying).
being able to get four outputs from three inputs just doesn>t make any
sense, and while i can perceive that your system isn>t using that
logic style, it still is quantizing into that domain, which is blowing
up the implementation of the system.

if you>ve indeed found a paradox within the system that opens it up a
bit, map that puppy out so we can look at it. try to flow chart it.

chris.
[/quote]
ok, will do, but pocket pc has no such tool that I know.


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, 6, 7, 8 Next
Page 2 of 8