Vet: Just because he couldn''t do it doesn''t automatically make it impossible to compress things better with data massage and such.
I don''t think it''s magic. I don''t think you can compress every file. See my last post.
Lack
Christianity, Creation, metric, Dvorak, and BeOS for all!
MP3-Beating Compression
Tssss.. 20 pages! ( I think this topic should be reopened myself 
)
I just read on the previous page something about "random data" again. People still don''t get it do they?
Someone said:
"By your definition a file with all 0s would be a random file."
Erm. Randomness is not a state of being. What you just said there is akin to saying 13 is a random number!
It is the process that you use to create it that counts! If you would use a random number generator to make a file of random length and contents - that file would be random. It might STILL contain all 0''s but that''s statistically unlikely. Now, if you use that algorithm to generate 2000 files to test your compression on, you''ll get a good idea of the average performance of the algorithm on strictly unordered data. THAT is the process of testing the quality of the algorithm, not on one magic "random" file.
#pragma DWIM // Do What I Mean!
~ Mad Keith ~
**I use Software Mode**
)I just read on the previous page something about "random data" again. People still don''t get it do they?
Someone said:
"By your definition a file with all 0s would be a random file."
Erm. Randomness is not a state of being. What you just said there is akin to saying 13 is a random number!
It is the process that you use to create it that counts! If you would use a random number generator to make a file of random length and contents - that file would be random. It might STILL contain all 0''s but that''s statistically unlikely. Now, if you use that algorithm to generate 2000 files to test your compression on, you''ll get a good idea of the average performance of the algorithm on strictly unordered data. THAT is the process of testing the quality of the algorithm, not on one magic "random" file.
#pragma DWIM // Do What I Mean!
~ Mad Keith ~
**I use Software Mode**
Geeze! Give it up!
Ok, i must admit that it has been fun and all, but phuuleze!
========================
Game project(s):
www.fiend.cjb.net
Ok, i must admit that it has been fun and all, but phuuleze!
========================
Game project(s):
www.fiend.cjb.net
quote:Original post by CobraA1
Oh, and by the way, "negative energy" (defined as matter with negative mass) can be used to bring matter to light speed, but nobody''s come up with a way to create this type of matter, not even theoretically. Even the anti-particles still have positive mass. As far as anybody can tell, matter that "blows" gravitationally has never been observed or created. So much for light-speed jets.
Negative energy hasn''t got anything to do with negative mass (or hasn''t got more to do with negative than with positive mass). Anti-particles have negative mass, but negative mass is positive energy.
Visit our homepage: www.rarebyte.de.st
GA
To keep this ridiculous thread going...
Now, I don't pretend to be an expert on quantum physics here, but from my understanding, anti-particles do NOT have negative mass. You're confusing mass with charge. And if negative mass were positive energy, wouldn't Einstein's little equation be stated: E = /m/ c^2 ? (The pipes don't show up right, but I mean absolute value).
Edited by - Loqi on 4/25/00 10:55:34 AM
Edited by - Loqi on 4/25/00 10:56:27 AM
quote: Original post by ga
Anti-particles have negative mass, but negative mass is positive energy.
Now, I don't pretend to be an expert on quantum physics here, but from my understanding, anti-particles do NOT have negative mass. You're confusing mass with charge. And if negative mass were positive energy, wouldn't Einstein's little equation be stated: E = /m/ c^2 ? (The pipes don't show up right, but I mean absolute value).
Edited by - Loqi on 4/25/00 10:55:34 AM
Edited by - Loqi on 4/25/00 10:56:27 AM
Couple of points I would like to point out to keiren_j:
-Firstly, what kind of coder would publicly release results wihout firstly TESTING the results. I mean, who in their right mind would test a compression program without also using a decompression program to make sure the compressed data wasn''t corrupted?!!!!!!!
-Secondly, obviously, along the way you discovered the holes in your code, however, you continued to "egg on" conversation on this thread by posting parts of your code and the theory behind your compression algo.
Tip for professional conduct: When you announce to the public a "new" coding/algo. technique and then you spot a problem with it ANNOUNCE THE PROBLEM! It''s called damage control.
I''m pretty sure that most people here think less of you now than they would have if you admitted to the problem earlier in the thread.
-Finally, keiren_j, you''ve muddied even more the theory behind compression.
btw,
esap1: I wouldn''t be surprised if there are more "bugs" in keiren_j''s code (other than the 1 bit per byte bug) that he hasn''t fessed up to yet.
-Firstly, what kind of coder would publicly release results wihout firstly TESTING the results. I mean, who in their right mind would test a compression program without also using a decompression program to make sure the compressed data wasn''t corrupted?!!!!!!!
-Secondly, obviously, along the way you discovered the holes in your code, however, you continued to "egg on" conversation on this thread by posting parts of your code and the theory behind your compression algo.
Tip for professional conduct: When you announce to the public a "new" coding/algo. technique and then you spot a problem with it ANNOUNCE THE PROBLEM! It''s called damage control.
I''m pretty sure that most people here think less of you now than they would have if you admitted to the problem earlier in the thread.
-Finally, keiren_j, you''ve muddied even more the theory behind compression.
btw,
esap1: I wouldn''t be surprised if there are more "bugs" in keiren_j''s code (other than the 1 bit per byte bug) that he hasn''t fessed up to yet.
quote:CobraA1: True statements, except for the random data thing. Because by your definition, a file with all 0''s is random data.
Where did I ever define random data as being all zeroes? From what I can see, you''re trying to take your own definition and claim it as mine.
quote:There will always be a file that doesn''t work, but would you ever need to compress it?
YES. There are thousands of file formats, and different algorithms handle them differently. And some of them get large, and would be difficult to handle without compression. Think of the people who still use modems to connect to the Internet. Ever tried downloading Netscape Navigator with a modem?
This topic is closed to new replies.
Advertisement
Popular Topics
Advertisement
