Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.compression > #3738 > unrolled thread

Universal compression

Back to article view | Back to comp.compression

Contents

  Universal compression nobody@example.org (Scott) - 2018-06-26 20:14 +0000
    Re: Universal compression Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2018-06-26 19:20 -0500
    Re: Universal compression Eli the Bearded <*@eli.users.panix.com> - 2018-06-27 02:56 +0000
    Re: Universal compression Luuk <luuk@invalid.lan> - 2018-06-27 20:07 +0200
      Re: Universal compression nobody@example.org (Scott) - 2018-06-27 20:34 +0000
        Re: Universal compression Providence <psionic81@gmail.com> - 2018-06-28 11:08 -0700

#3738 — Universal compression

Well, it's been a while since I poked my head in here. Thought I'd
check in.

Is anyone making progress on a universal compressor? Last I heard, at
least a couple of folks were on the verge of finally defeating that
pesky Shannon limit.

I'll remind everyone that I do in fact have a working compressor that
can reduce the length of any bitstream by one bit. The decompressor is
still giving me a bit of trouble, though.

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#3739

On Tue, 26 Jun 2018 20:14:10 GMT, nobody@example.org (Scott) wrote:

>Well, it's been a while since I poked my head in here. Thought I'd
>check in.
>
>Is anyone making progress on a universal compressor? Last I heard, at
>least a couple of folks were on the verge of finally defeating that
>pesky Shannon limit.
>
>I'll remind everyone that I do in fact have a working compressor that
>can reduce the length of any bitstream by one bit. The decompressor is
>still giving me a bit of trouble, though.


No.  The concept is just as non-sensical this time around, as it was
the last thousand times.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#3740

In comp.compression, Scott <nobody@example.org> wrote:
> Is anyone making progress on a universal compressor? Last I heard, at
> least a couple of folks were on the verge of finally defeating that
> pesky Shannon limit.
> 
> I'll remind everyone that I do in fact have a working compressor that
> can reduce the length of any bitstream by one bit. The decompressor is
> still giving me a bit of trouble, though.

I have a system for shrinking any file of non-zero size. Only gotcha is
the arbitrary filename length requirement is making finding the right
filesystem difficult.

Elijah
------
recognizes a joke unlike that other poster

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#3741

On 26-6-2018 22:14, Scott wrote:
> Well, it's been a while since I poked my head in here. Thought I'd
> check in.
> 
> Is anyone making progress on a universal compressor? Last I heard, at
> least a couple of folks were on the verge of finally defeating that
> pesky Shannon limit.
> 
> I'll remind everyone that I do in fact have a working compressor that
> can reduce the length of any bitstream by one bit. The decompressor is
> still giving me a bit of trouble, though.
> 

What is you failure ratio?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#3742

On Wed, 27 Jun 2018 20:07:22 +0200, Luuk <luuk@invalid.lan> wrote:

>On 26-6-2018 22:14, Scott wrote:
>> I'll remind everyone that I do in fact have a working compressor that
>> can reduce the length of any bitstream by one bit. The decompressor is
>> still giving me a bit of trouble, though.
>
>What is you failure ratio?

Funny you should ask. The decompressor error rate turns out to be
almost exactly the same as the input compression ratio. I'm sure it's
just a coincidence.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#3743

Frankly, I'm still on this list for (years) just to hear people's approaches to this.

One of the major benefits I see from (anyone) examining this is transfinite detail is that there is an extremely well rounded thought process that develops from the perpetual failure cases.

It resolves into the understanding of what algorithms out there are the absolute best in the approach to the entropy limit, and thus has a beautiful resolution in that the investigators are then fully up to date with the current process. And because the latest and greatest in algorithms has been in the last few years, there's an enormous flexibility in thought of how to apply those approaches to ones' own process.


Plus there's extremely unique solution spaces that aren't really fully developed (and thus can be progressed from the state-of-the-art).

Merkle trees and blockchain applications for example. How do they work? What do the proofs look like? If we wanted to send an absolutely minimal transmission with error encoding to a.. moon base for example.. how would we go about it.

Keep progressing <3 There's a lot out there.


On Wednesday, June 27, 2018 at 4:35:03 PM UTC-4, Scott wrote:
> On Wed, 27 Jun 2018 20:07:22 +0200, Luuk <luuk@invalid.lan> wrote:
> 
> >On 26-6-2018 22:14, Scott wrote:
> >> I'll remind everyone that I do in fact have a working compressor that
> >> can reduce the length of any bitstream by one bit. The decompressor is
> >> still giving me a bit of trouble, though.
> >
> >What is you failure ratio?
> 
> Funny you should ask. The decompressor error rate turns out to be
> almost exactly the same as the input compression ratio. I'm sure it's
> just a coincidence.

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | comp.compression

csiph-web