Random Data

"David A. Scott" <daVvid_a_scott@email.com> wrote in message
 news:Xns95485225AF71DH110W296LC45WIN3030
R@130.133.1.4...
| "George Johnson" <matrix29@voyager.net> wrote in
| news:10i42a2i8m57m04@corp.supernews.com:
|
| > *CORRECTION*
|
|    Not a big enough correction for compression. You don't have
| a clear grasp of the counting problem. Using ascpects
| of name changes is not considers part of the compression.
| Yes some programs do it or add extensions. One is free to
| do whatever one wants no rules.
|    But when one says he can beat the counting argument one
| is limited to only the data in files and not file name changes
| and such. Look thats my view and since I dared pointed it out
| to you I suspect King will jump in and say how foolish of
| both of us. Since no one compresses files only carefully
| defined streams. Only I care about file compression no one
| else does or did you not learn that yet if not read Kings
| replys they are sometimes entertaining.

My lazyass joke of an example is really not the important aspect of it
all...

Because every number MUST be stored in a file system of some sort (even
the pigeon holes count as a file system).

The second aspect of this is that all compression requires indexing.

The third aspect of this is that all compressors must utilize a file
system and indexing techniques in all files compressed.


The file systems may be required to be universal (which requires more
indexing inside the compressed file itself).  The file may be
self-decompressing.  Regardless, one can still cheat realizing that there
must be a file system, indexing, and a way to identify those indexing
techniques in the compressed file.  Those exist always outside the file no
matter what it written inside it.

Hi Scott,

>     Because every number MUST be stored in a file system of some sort (eve
n
> the pigeon holes count as a file system).

Since when? Why?

>     The second aspect of this is that all compression requires indexing.

>     The third aspect of this is that all compressors must utilize a file
> system and indexing techniques in all files compressed.

Why?

>     The file systems may be required to be universal (which requires more
> indexing inside the compressed file itself).  The file may be
> self-decompressing.  Regardless, one can still cheat realizing that there
> must be a file system, indexing, and a way to identify those indexing
> techniques in the compressed file.  Those exist always outside the file no
> matter what it written inside it.

Why do you think "compression" is about "compressing files"? When I
communicate data, say, a video signal from my local TV station to my
home TV, where are the files you're talking about?

So long,
Thomas

"Thomas Richter" <thor@cleopatra.math.tu-berlin.de> wrote in message
news:cft85n$nen$1@mamenchi.zrz.TU-Berlin.DE...
| Hi Scott,
|
| >     Because every number MUST be stored in a file system of some sort
(even
| > the pigeon holes count as a file system).
|
| Since when? Why?
|
| >     The second aspect of this is that all compression requires indexing.
|
| >     The third aspect of this is that all compressors must utilize a file
| > system and indexing techniques in all files compressed.
|
| Why?
|
| >     The file systems may be required to be universal (which requires
more
| > indexing inside the compressed file itself).  The file may be
| > self-decompressing.  Regardless, one can still cheat realizing that
there
| > must be a file system, indexing, and a way to identify those indexing
| > techniques in the compressed file.  Those exist always outside the file
no
| > matter what it written inside it.
|
| Why do you think "compression" is about "compressing files"? When I
| communicate data, say, a video signal from my local TV station to my
| home TV, where are the files you're talking about?
|
| So long,
| Thomas

On the media that you are playing it from.

In your example, the media is the file.

Hi,

>     On the media that you are playing it from.

>     In your example, the media is the file.

There is no media to play from. The cam-corder at my local TV station
takes a picture, sends it to the TV station, which again broadcasts it
to my TV. Where's the file? No data is ever stored (at least not for
this transmission).

As side information, we've DVB-T here in Berlin. That's MPEG-2 'over air',
basically. Ain't this compression?

So long,
Thomas

On Mon, 16 Aug 2004 22:49:28 +0000 (UTC), Dr Chaos
<mbkennelSPAMBEGONE@NOSPAMyahoo.com> wrote:

>On 16 Aug 2004 15:06:30 -0700, Dale King <kingd@tmicha.net> wrote: 
>
>no, you don't get it.
>
>you use the PREGNANT PIGEON transform
>

Or, for higher compression, just feed them all to a snake.

-Tim

"Thomas Richter" <thor@cleopatra.math.tu-berlin.de> wrote in message
news:cft9d3$oaq$1@mamenchi.zrz.TU-Berlin.DE...
| Hi,
|
| >     On the media that you are playing it from.
|
| >     In your example, the media is the file.
|
| There is no media to play from. The cam-corder at my local TV station
| takes a picture, sends it to the TV station, which again broadcasts it
| to my TV. Where's the file? No data is ever stored (at least not for
| this transmission).
|
| As side information, we've DVB-T here in Berlin. That's MPEG-2 'over air',
| basically. Ain't this compression?
|
| So long,
| Thomas

Each frame of video.  A packet.  The shared indexing allows other
decompressors (televisions) to display the lossy compressed video signal.
All of the information is a sliding file in whatever format it is translated
into (radio waves, cable signal, compressed satellite signal, etc...).
Whatever the information is, there must be a medium to hold it (however
briefly) until it is decoded again.

Another aspect of the wrapping of the packets for television involves
the SMPTE broadcast signal which standardizes the video for reception.

"Dale King" <kingd@tmicha.net> wrote in message news:<cfrb56$lf0@odah37.prod.google.com>...

> 4 years ago there was a thread where it was suggested we could get 16
> pigeons into 15 holes, by applying the blender transform. And since we
> were talking about pigeons there was some question whether this could
> really be considered a lossy transform ;-)

LOL!  Hadn't heard that one before!

Well, you'd certainly be encoding entropy... I mean, there has got to
be a lot of redundant space in a pidgeon.  *Decompression* would be
the hard part ;-)

"Dale King" <kingd@tmicha.net> wrote in message news:<cfrb56$lf0@odah37.prod.google.com>...

> 4 years ago there was a thread where it was suggested we could get 16
> pigeons into 15 holes, by applying the blender transform. And since we
> were talking about pigeons there was some question whether this could
> really be considered a lossy transform ;-)

LOL!  Hadn't heard that one before!

Well, you'd certainly be encoding entropy... I mean, there has got to
be a lot of redundant space in a pidgeon.  *Decompression* would be
the hard part ;-)

"Tim Arheit" <tarheit@wcoil.com> wrote in message
news:cfta00$af9$0$65.17.151.55@wcoil.com...
| On Mon, 16 Aug 2004 22:49:28 +0000 (UTC), Dr Chaos
| <mbkennelSPAMBEGONE@NOSPAMyahoo.com> wrote:
|
| >On 16 Aug 2004 15:06:30 -0700, Dale King <kingd@tmicha.net> wrote:
| >>
| >> Jim Leonard wrote:
| >>> "The Phantom" <The Phantom@ Ghost.net> wrote in message
| >> news:<411dfc39@news.comindico.com.au>...
| >>> > I suppose one could call this the search for the Holy Grail.
| >>>
| >>> They certainly have much in common; both are pursued relentlessly by
| >>> people who are unwilling or unable to accept the truth.
| >>>
| >>> > I shall write more on the fallacy of the counting argument in a few
| >> days
| >>>
| >>> I would *love* to read your explanation of how to fit 16 pidgeons in
| >>> 15 holes.  And no fair using a hacksaw.
| >>
| >> 4 years ago there was a thread where it was suggested we could get 16
| >> pigeons into 15 holes, by applying the blender transform. And since we
| >> were talking about pigeons there was some question whether this could
| >> really be considered a lossy transform ;-)
| >
| >no, you don't get it.
| >
| >you use the PREGNANT PIGEON transform
| >
|
| Or, for higher compression, just feed them all to a snake.
|
| -Tim

I don't want to be the fella that decompresses the resulting smaller
file size.

--- Just saying...

David A. Scott wrote:
> "George Johnson" <matrix29@voyager.net> wrote in
> news:10i42a2i8m57m04@corp.supernews.com:
> 
>
>    Not a big enough correction for compression. You don't have
> a clear grasp of the counting problem.

Either that or he is simply a troll.

> Using ascpects
> of name changes is not considers part of the compression.

Nor is reliance on file length.

> Yes some programs do it or add extensions. One is free to
> do whatever one wants no rules.
>    But when one says he can beat the counting argument one
> is limited to only the data in files and not file name changes
> and such. Look thats my view and since I dared pointed it out
> to you I suspect King will jump in and say how foolish of
> both of us.

The counting argument and the data communication in general is
calculated on how many symbols (typically bits) are transmitted from
the sender (the compressor) to the receiver (the decompressor). It
doesn't matter where the data is transmitted. I have absolutely no
trouble with information being transmitted in a file name IF those bits
are counted in the total number of bits sent.

> Since no one compresses files only carefully
> defined streams.

> Only I care about file compression no one
> else does

Exactly! You are starting to catch on! If one only cares about file
compression then your ideas are a good idea. But since everyone else
cares very much about not limiting themselves to only files they cannot
apply your ideas. I'm not sure why that has to cause such vehemence on
your behalf.