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

Groups > comp.lang.javascript > #25500 > unrolled thread

Arithmetic compression.

Back to article view | Back to comp.lang.javascript

Contents

  Arithmetic compression. jonas.thornvall@gmail.com - 2014-07-21 13:26 -0700
    Re: Arithmetic compression. JJ <jj4public@vfemail.net> - 2014-07-22 05:01 +0700
      Re: Arithmetic compression. jonas.thornvall@gmail.com - 2014-07-21 15:44 -0700
        Re: Arithmetic compression. "J. Clarke" <jclarkeusenet@cox.net> - 2014-07-22 07:27 -0400
          Re: Arithmetic compression. jonas.thornvall@gmail.com - 2014-07-22 04:53 -0700
      Re: Arithmetic compression. jonas.thornvall@gmail.com - 2014-07-21 16:20 -0700
      Re: Arithmetic compression. jonas.thornvall@gmail.com - 2014-07-21 16:22 -0700
        Re: Arithmetic compression. jonas.thornvall@gmail.com - 2014-07-21 23:17 -0700
    Re: Arithmetic compression. John Harris <niam@jghnorth.org.uk.invalid> - 2014-07-22 09:07 +0100
      Re: Arithmetic compression. Stefan Weiss <krewecherl@gmail.com> - 2014-07-22 11:58 +0200
        Re: Arithmetic compression. jonas.thornvall@gmail.com - 2014-07-22 05:12 -0700
      Re: Arithmetic compression. jonas.thornvall@gmail.com - 2014-07-22 04:49 -0700
        Re: Arithmetic compression. John Harris <niam@jghnorth.org.uk.invalid> - 2014-07-22 15:53 +0100
          Re: Arithmetic compression. jonas.thornvall@gmail.com - 2014-07-22 08:17 -0700
            Re: Arithmetic compression. Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2014-07-22 17:00 +0100
    Re: Arithmetic compression. Scott Sauyet <scott.sauyet@gmail.com> - 2014-07-22 08:08 -0700
      Re: Arithmetic compression. jonas.thornvall@gmail.com - 2014-07-22 08:29 -0700
        Re: Arithmetic compression. jonas.thornvall@gmail.com - 2014-07-22 08:48 -0700
        Re: Arithmetic compression. Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2014-07-22 17:07 +0100
          Re: Arithmetic compression. jonas.thornvall@gmail.com - 2014-07-22 09:17 -0700
            Re: Arithmetic compression. Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2014-07-22 17:24 +0100
              Re: Arithmetic compression. Stefan Weiss <krewecherl@gmail.com> - 2014-07-22 22:12 +0200
                Re: Arithmetic compression. jonas.thornvall@gmail.com - 2014-07-22 16:24 -0700
                Re: Arithmetic compression. Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2014-07-23 00:39 +0100
          Re: Arithmetic compression. jonas.thornvall@gmail.com - 2014-07-22 09:25 -0700
            Re: Arithmetic compression. Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2014-07-22 17:30 +0100
              Re: Arithmetic compression. jonas.thornvall@gmail.com - 2014-07-22 10:45 -0700
              Re: Arithmetic compression. Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2014-07-23 02:08 +0200
                Re: Arithmetic compression. Scott Sauyet <scott.sauyet@gmail.com> - 2014-07-22 17:20 -0700
                  Re: Arithmetic compression. jonas.thornvall@gmail.com - 2014-07-22 18:19 -0700
        Re: Arithmetic compression. Scott Sauyet <scott.sauyet@gmail.com> - 2014-07-22 11:11 -0700
          Re: Arithmetic compression. jonas.thornvall@gmail.com - 2014-07-22 11:56 -0700
          Re: Arithmetic compression. John Harris <niam@jghnorth.org.uk.invalid> - 2014-07-23 16:15 +0100
        Re: Arithmetic compression. Tim Streater <timstreater@greenbee.net> - 2014-07-22 19:14 +0100
          Re: Arithmetic compression. jonas.thornvall@gmail.com - 2014-07-22 11:57 -0700
            Re: Arithmetic compression. Tim Streater <timstreater@greenbee.net> - 2014-07-22 21:32 +0100
              Re: Arithmetic compression. jonas.thornvall@gmail.com - 2014-07-22 16:27 -0700
              Re: Arithmetic compression. jonas.thornvall@gmail.com - 2014-07-22 16:29 -0700
    Re: Arithmetic compression. Dave Brown <0ntariokingston@gmail.com> - 2015-05-07 05:32 -0700

Page 2 of 2 — ← Prev page 1 [2]

#25522

jonas.thornvall@gmail.com writes:

> Den tisdagen den 22:e juli 2014 kl. 18:07:06 UTC+2 skrev Ben Bacarisse:
>> jonas.thornvall@gmail.com writes:
>> <snip>
>> > But the compression alone would make us wealthy beyond comprehension,
>> > because there woul not be a single transmission over internet not
>> > using the ciruit. Not a television broadcast.
>> >
>> > And basicly we would change math also forever, so there is strong
>> > interest who would like to stop this coming from the math community
>> > side. They would even despice us for trying.
>> 
>> Sorry.  I replied before reading this.  I know how this one goes: no one
>> can persuade you that you are wrong, but because it is so valuable, you
>> can't show anyone the code.  There's a built-in stalemate to these
>> situations.
>> 
>
> Well i actually studied computer science

Out of interest, where was that?

> and this is already
> implemented, and as i said already in use, but it is not commodity you
> and i can go purchase.
>
> It has quite other purposes, but i was the one developing it. And
> those sitting on the idea will not go for the patent, they want a
> closed group of peers to use it.

Oh well, the end result is the same.  No one will ever see the code so
you can say what you like about it.

-- 
Ben.

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

#25532

On 2014-07-22 18:24, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
> Oh well, the end result is the same.  No one will ever see the code so
> you can say what you like about it.

Don't be so pessimistic. I have managed to obtain a copy his code, and
have included it in this message. For bandwidth reasons, I've applied
said compression to it several times, until only a single byte was left.
Enjoy!


- stefan


PS, Jonas may want to read this:
http://www.faqs.org/faqs/compression-faq/part1/section-8.html

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

#25534

Den tisdagen den 22:e juli 2014 kl. 22:12:52 UTC+2 skrev Stefan Weiss:
> On 2014-07-22 18:24, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
> 
> > Oh well, the end result is the same.  No one will ever see the code so
> 
> > you can say what you like about it.
> 
> 
> 
> Don't be so pessimistic. I have managed to obtain a copy his code, and
> 
> have included it in this message. For bandwidth reasons, I've applied
> 
> said compression to it several times, until only a single byte was left.
> 
> Enjoy!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> - stefan
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PS, Jonas may want to read this:
> 
> http://www.faqs.org/faqs/compression-faq/part1/section-8.html

Every compression have a lower bound, an actual number of bits that can not be surpassed,+ further you have to take into account storing the round information.

So the minimal length of the message in bits will be lower bound + round info.

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

#25537

Stefan Weiss <krewecherl@gmail.com> writes:

> On 2014-07-22 18:24, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>> Oh well, the end result is the same.  No one will ever see the code so
>> you can say what you like about it.
>
> Don't be so pessimistic. I have managed to obtain a copy his code, and
> have included it in this message. For bandwidth reasons, I've applied
> said compression to it several times, until only a single byte was left.
> Enjoy!

:-)

-- 
Ben.

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

#25523

Den tisdagen den 22:e juli 2014 kl. 18:07:06 UTC+2 skrev Ben Bacarisse:
> jonas.thornvall@gmail.com writes:
> 
> <snip>
> 
> > But the compression alone would make us wealthy beyond comprehension,
> 
> > because there woul not be a single transmission over internet not
> 
> > using the ciruit. Not a television broadcast.
> 
> >
> 
> > And basicly we would change math also forever, so there is strong
> 
> > interest who would like to stop this coming from the math community
> 
> > side. They would even despice us for trying.
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry.  I replied before reading this.  I know how this one goes: no one
> 
> can persuade you that you are wrong, but because it is so valuable, you
> 
> can't show anyone the code.  There's a built-in stalemate to these
> 
> situations.
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> 
> Ben.

Well i showed you the general purpose zeroless base encoder. And i showed you the ternary computer that was built using the principles of bijective bases. 

That you are not intelligent enough to figure out how it works, do not mean it do not work.

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

#25524

jonas.thornvall@gmail.com writes:

> Den tisdagen den 22:e juli 2014 kl. 18:07:06 UTC+2 skrev Ben Bacarisse:
>> jonas.thornvall@gmail.com writes:
<snip>
>> Sorry.  I replied before reading this.  I know how this one goes: no one
>> can persuade you that you are wrong, but because it is so valuable, you
>> can't show anyone the code.  There's a built-in stalemate to these
>> situations.
>
> Well i showed you the general purpose zeroless base encoder. And i
> showed you the ternary computer that was built using the principles of
> bijective bases.
>
> That you are not intelligent enough to figure out how it works, do not
> mean it do not work.

No, that's right, it doesn't.  It won't work for reasons quite
unconnected to my lack of intellect.

-- 
Ben.

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

#25525

Den tisdagen den 22:e juli 2014 kl. 18:30:45 UTC+2 skrev Ben Bacarisse:
> jonas.thornvall@gmail.com writes:
> 
> 
> 
> > Den tisdagen den 22:e juli 2014 kl. 18:07:06 UTC+2 skrev Ben Bacarisse:
> 
> >> jonas.thornvall@gmail.com writes:
> 
> <snip>
> 
> >> Sorry.  I replied before reading this.  I know how this one goes: no one
> 
> >> can persuade you that you are wrong, but because it is so valuable, you
> 
> >> can't show anyone the code.  There's a built-in stalemate to these
> 
> >> situations.
> 
> >
> 
> > Well i showed you the general purpose zeroless base encoder. And i
> 
> > showed you the ternary computer that was built using the principles of
> 
> > bijective bases.
> 
> >
> 
> > That you are not intelligent enough to figure out how it works, do not
> 
> > mean it do not work.
> 
> 
> 
> No, that's right, it doesn't.  It won't work for reasons quite
> 
> unconnected to my lack of intellect.
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> 
> Ben.

I could show you a video with a monkey doing charades, but i am not in the mood for it.

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

#25538

Ben Bacarisse wrote:

> jonas.thornvall@gmail.com writes:
>> That you are not intelligent enough to figure out how it works, do not
>> mean it do not work.
> 
> No, that's right, it doesn't.  It won't work for reasons quite
> unconnected to my lack of intellect.

*Please* do not feed the troll.
 
-- 
PointedEars
FAQ: <http://PointedEars.de/faq> | SVN: <http://PointedEars.de/wsvn/>
Twitter: @PointedEars2 | ES Matrix: <http://PointedEars.de/es-matrix>
Please do not Cc: me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.

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

#25539

Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
> Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>> jonas.thornvall@gmail.com writes:

>>> That you are not intelligent enough to figure out how it works, do not
>>> mean it do not work.
>> No, that's right, it doesn't.  It won't work for reasons quite
>> unconnected to my lack of intellect.
> 
> *Please* do not feed the troll.

Agreed.  What started out sounding like an odd mathematical diversion has
turned into something much more bizarre.

  -- Scott

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

#25540

Den onsdagen den 23:e juli 2014 kl. 02:20:53 UTC+2 skrev Scott Sauyet:
> Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
> 
> > Ben Bacarisse wrote:
> 
> >> jonas.thornvall@gmail.com writes:
> 
> 
> 
> >>> That you are not intelligent enough to figure out how it works, do not
> 
> >>> mean it do not work.
> 
> >> No, that's right, it doesn't.  It won't work for reasons quite
> 
> >> unconnected to my lack of intellect.
> 
> > 
> 
> > *Please* do not feed the troll.
> 
> 
> 
> Agreed.  What started out sounding like an odd mathematical diversion has
> 
> turned into something much more bizarre.
> 
> 
> 
>   -- Scott

Yes it is bizarre, but it is still true.

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

#25526

jonas.thornvall@gmail.com wrote: 
> skrev Scott Sauyet:
>> These seem to be well-formed, in the sense that for a given base, there 
>> is an unambiguous encoding of every positive integer.  (I haven't checked 
>> that every string of these digits actually represents a number.)  I 
>> really don't understand what it's for, though or what advantage Jonas is 
>> seeing for it.  I'd like to hear if there are some.
> 
> As you noted Scott zeroless bases encode numbers ***any binary string*** 1 
> digit shorter then their binary counterparts, but i will and ***have 
> written*** program emulating more complex encoding circuits using zeroless 
> bijective properties, that will encode as much as 1/3 of any random data. 
> [ ... ]

So you're going to use this as an alternative to the place-based binary 
encoding in digital circuits?  I'm impressed.  But there seems to be a major 
flaw: there's a very important number in mathematics that you can't seem to encode:  what's the encoding of zero?

  -- Scott

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

#25528

Den tisdagen den 22:e juli 2014 kl. 20:11:29 UTC+2 skrev Scott Sauyet:
> jonas.thornvall@gmail.com wrote: 
> 
> > skrev Scott Sauyet:
> 
> >> These seem to be well-formed, in the sense that for a given base, there 
> 
> >> is an unambiguous encoding of every positive integer.  (I haven't checked 
> 
> >> that every string of these digits actually represents a number.)  I 
> 
> >> really don't understand what it's for, though or what advantage Jonas is 
> 
> >> seeing for it.  I'd like to hear if there are some.
> 
> > 
> 
> > As you noted Scott zeroless bases encode numbers ***any binary string*** 1 
> 
> > digit shorter then their binary counterparts, but i will and ***have 
> 
> > written*** program emulating more complex encoding circuits using zeroless 
> 
> > bijective properties, that will encode as much as 1/3 of any random data. 
> 
> > [ ... ]
> 
> 
> 
> So you're going to use this as an alternative to the place-based binary 
> 
> encoding in digital circuits?  I'm impressed.  But there seems to be a major 
> 
> flaw: there's a very important number in mathematics that you can't seem to encode:  what's the encoding of zero?
> 
> 
> 
>   -- Scott
It is already use as an alternative in emulation of digital circuits se Setun ternary computer.

null=0

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

#25548

On Tue, 22 Jul 2014 11:11:29 -0700 (PDT), Scott Sauyet
<scott.sauyet@gmail.com> wrote:

  <snip>
>So you're going to use this as an alternative to the place-based binary 
>encoding in digital circuits?  I'm impressed.  But there seems to be a major 
>flaw: there's a very important number in mathematics that you can't seem to encode:  what's the encoding of zero?

If you're talking about Jonas' 'zeroless encoding' then a zero is
written as on the next line :

Unfortunately, the absence of a number looks like :

and is hard to tell apart. This means you have to have a way of
marking the beginning and end of the number string, as in
  ""   zero
  "1"  one
  "2"  two
  "11" three
so one binary digit turns into 3 characters, two binary digits turns
into 4 characters, etc.

Not what I call shorter.

  John

(And it's murder accessing the r'th number in an n-element array :
O(n) instead of O(1); i.e as nasty as UTF-8.)

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

#25527

In article <43970baf-66ab-4fd7-9ac0-71906a1f05f2@googlegroups.com>,
<jonas.thornvall@gmail.com> wrote:


> But the compression alone would make us wealthy beyond comprehension, because
> there woul not be a single transmission over internet not using the ciruit.
> Not a television broadcast.

You going to switch off the internet while all its equipment is
changed, then?

-- 
"If you're not able to ask questions and deal with the answers without feeling 
that someone has called your intelligence or competence into question, don't 
ask questions on Usenet where the answers won't be carefully tailored to avoid
tripping your hair-trigger insecurities."                  - D M Procida, UCSM

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

#25529

Den tisdagen den 22:e juli 2014 kl. 20:14:13 UTC+2 skrev Tim Streater:
> In article <43970baf-66ab-4fd7-9ac0-71906a1f05f2@googlegroups.com>,
> 
> <jonas.thornvall@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> > But the compression alone would make us wealthy beyond comprehension, because
> 
> > there woul not be a single transmission over internet not using the ciruit.
> 
> > Not a television broadcast.
> 
> 
> 
> You going to switch off the internet while all its equipment is
> 
> changed, then?
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> 
> "If you're not able to ask questions and deal with the answers without feeling 
> 
> that someone has called your intelligence or competence into question, don't 
> 
> ask questions on Usenet where the answers won't be carefully tailored to avoid
> 
> tripping your hair-trigger insecurities."                  - D M Procida, UCSM

No electronics get replaced you know.

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

#25533

In article <479aae88-a180-4cd0-89c3-ce083107e2de@googlegroups.com>,
<jonas.thornvall@gmail.com> wrote:

> Den tisdagen den 22:e juli 2014 kl. 20:14:13 UTC+2 skrev Tim Streater:
> > In article <43970baf-66ab-4fd7-9ac0-71906a1f05f2@googlegroups.com>,
> > <jonas.thornvall@gmail.com> wrote:

> > > But the compression alone would make us wealthy beyond comprehension,
> > > because there woul not be a single transmission over internet not
> > > using the ciruit. Not a television broadcast.

> > You going to switch off the internet while all its equipment is
> > changed, then?

> No electronics get replaced you know.

You talk about a circuit. What circuit?

You talk about "there would not be a single transmission over internet
not using the circuit". What circuit? Transmissions over the internet
involve packets being sent from one router to another. These routers
are *computers* (specialised ones, but still computers). So they send
and receive numbers, encoded in binary.

Are you going to introduce new routers that encode differently, and
send packets with a new encoding? If not, what is the point of your
proposal? If so, are you going to switch off the internet while all its
equipment is changed? Otherwise, what happens when an old type router
receives a differently encoded packets from your new router?

-- 
"People don't buy Microsoft for quality, they buy it for compatibility
with what Bob in accounting bought last year. Trace it back - they buy
Microsoft because the IBM Selectric didn't suck much" - P Seebach, afc

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

#25535

Den tisdagen den 22:e juli 2014 kl. 22:32:48 UTC+2 skrev Tim Streater:
> In article <479aae88-a180-4cd0-89c3-ce083107e2de@googlegroups.com>,
> 
> <jonas.thornvall@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> > Den tisdagen den 22:e juli 2014 kl. 20:14:13 UTC+2 skrev Tim Streater:
> 
> > > In article <43970baf-66ab-4fd7-9ac0-71906a1f05f2@googlegroups.com>,
> 
> > > <jonas.thornvall@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> > > > But the compression alone would make us wealthy beyond comprehension,
> 
> > > > because there woul not be a single transmission over internet not
> 
> > > > using the ciruit. Not a television broadcast.
> 
> 
> 
> > > You going to switch off the internet while all its equipment is
> 
> > > changed, then?
> 
> 
> 
> > No electronics get replaced you know.
> 
> 
> 
> You talk about a circuit. What circuit?
> 
> 
> 
> You talk about "there would not be a single transmission over internet
> 
> not using the circuit". What circuit? Transmissions over the internet
> 
> involve packets being sent from one router to another. These routers
> 
> are *computers* (specialised ones, but still computers). So they send
> 
> and receive numbers, encoded in binary.
> 
> 
> 
> Are you going to introduce new routers that encode differently, and
> 
> send packets with a new encoding? If not, what is the point of your
> 
> proposal? If so, are you going to switch off the internet while all its
> 
> equipment is changed? Otherwise, what happens when an old type router
> 
> receives a differently encoded packets from your new router?
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> 
> "People don't buy Microsoft for quality, they buy it for compatibility
> 
> with what Bob in accounting bought last year. Trace it back - they buy
> 
> Microsoft because the IBM Selectric didn't suck much" - P Seebach, afc

When new technology introduced there is always bridges.

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

#25536

Den tisdagen den 22:e juli 2014 kl. 22:32:48 UTC+2 skrev Tim Streater:
> In article <479aae88-a180-4cd0-89c3-ce083107e2de@googlegroups.com>,
> 
> <jonas.thornvall@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> > Den tisdagen den 22:e juli 2014 kl. 20:14:13 UTC+2 skrev Tim Streater:
> 
> > > In article <43970baf-66ab-4fd7-9ac0-71906a1f05f2@googlegroups.com>,
> 
> > > <jonas.thornvall@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> > > > But the compression alone would make us wealthy beyond comprehension,
> 
> > > > because there woul not be a single transmission over internet not
> 
> > > > using the ciruit. Not a television broadcast.
> 
> 
> 
> > > You going to switch off the internet while all its equipment is
> 
> > > changed, then?
> 
> 
> 
> > No electronics get replaced you know.
> 
> 
> 
> You talk about a circuit. What circuit?
> 
This one
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VWeSW8jHBe0 
> 
> You talk about "there would not be a single transmission over internet
> 
> not using the circuit". What circuit? Transmissions over the internet
> 
> involve packets being sent from one router to another. These routers
> 
> are *computers* (specialised ones, but still computers). So they send
> 
> and receive numbers, encoded in binary.
> 
> 
> 
> Are you going to introduce new routers that encode differently, and
> 
> send packets with a new encoding? If not, what is the point of your
> 
> proposal? If so, are you going to switch off the internet while all its
> 
> equipment is changed? Otherwise, what happens when an old type router
> 
> receives a differently encoded packets from your new router?
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> 
> "People don't buy Microsoft for quality, they buy it for compatibility
> 
> with what Bob in accounting bought last year. Trace it back - they buy
> 
> Microsoft because the IBM Selectric didn't suck much" - P Seebach, afc

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

#27549

On Monday, July 21, 2014 at 4:26:27 PM UTC-4, jonas.t...@gmail.com wrote:
> Encoding binary numbers into base-2 zeroless encoding save digit places why isn't it used is there disadvantages doing arithmetic in zeroless bases? 27 = 1 1 0 1 1 = 2 2 1 1
> 
> The actual numbers in example is of course just symbols we could encode it to 1100? And with a bijective zeroless encoder decode it would still decode to 27.
> 
> I have a much stronger compressed encoding in mind, if is just implement it correct it will be mindblowing.. I hope this get thru i am not always that clear, presenting my problems.

Do you have any JavaScript samples working? I am looking for more compression techniques for www.scriptcompress.com as I am finding that mixing up some combinations of compressing can achieve amazing results.

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Page 2 of 2 — ← Prev page 1 [2]

Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.javascript

csiph-web