Continuation of open DISCUSSION between jacko et al

My poket IE don't like the length of the topic, so I put a new one up.
So are we agreed that the carrier stats are the only thing which limit
the possibility of compression?

And to the code rquester, well obviously you have no code, this would
be cos you haven't written it yet. Don't go arround saying I'm
offending you with my language when, you are constantly making
requests to provide you with code you should be capable of writing
yourself if you want to. Do your own work you lazy bastard.

Hi thomas and industrial, no offence ment to you, as you both seem
capable of carrying out rational argument, without being demanding
overbaring 'overseer' nuts. I know he just wants his toy and is not
prepared to discuss pricipals of toy manufacture.

Must be something to do with a conflict of interest in his share
holdings. Ah well I'm not on his pay roll, he never gives me a
rational listen, and so stuff him in the context of this open
discussion. I never want to be on his pay roll either, as I have
better things to live for.

Cheers

Jacko = Jackson = Me != Jackal

jacko schrieb:
My poket IE don't like the length of the topic, so I put a new one up.
So are we agreed that the carrier stats are the only thing which limit
the possibility of compression?

I afraid not. The only thing that limits compression is the entropy of
the source itself, depending on a suitable model for the source.

What you basically do is that you make a change of the model by
"modulating", which *might* help in compression if this
model fits better to the source, but *why* that should be the case is
something you failed to explain up to now, even after asking several
times. At some point, I got tired about it - you simply failed to give a
convincing argument, and you also failed to provide evidence.

And to the code rquester, well obviously you have no code, this would
be cos you haven't written it yet. Don't go arround saying I'm
offending you with my language when, you are constantly making
requests to provide you with code you should be capable of writing
yourself if you want to. Do your own work you lazy bastard.

That's not quite correct - the situation isn't that *I* have to prove
you wrong, it's understood scientific practice that the one making the
claims also has to provide evidence. My time is pretty limited, and I
prefer to use it for more promising ideas - that is, unless you convince
me that you have a promising idea, which you haven't yet.

The first starting point for that would be, for example, working code.
It would make the whole idea much more clear - it isn't 100% clear to me
in first place.

So long,
Thomas

jacko schrieb:

As the counting argument is not correct because

I think we better stop this here. ET.

A new MEANing to the counting argument I think.

So would you say that all carrier entropies have to be 1 is equivelent
to the counting argument from implication?

cheers

jacko

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 HLD 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

<snip>
Could you explain to us what your system would produce as compressed
output for the above sequence?
>
The compressed out put produced would depend on exactly how the low
entropy carrier is generated step by step. If the entropy of the
carrier was lower at 0000 0000 0100 0000 0000 0000 0001 0000 it can
easily be seen that [110] nestable symbols would have a lower desity,
and so a higher storage desity per carrier cycle would be achived.
>
if the carrier stream had a higher entropy such as 1010 1010 1010
1010 then it is obvious that it is impossible to place many [110]
symbols to allow unique decode. as they result from modulation of a
[100] carrier state ocupation. This sets the entropy limit.
>
So the answer to your question is what is your prefered compact
representation of some algorithmic carrier with a low enough entropy?
because you could get various answers.
>
jacko.- Hide quoted text -
>
- Show quoted text -

to further clarify. If i estimate that the complexity of the carrier
is 77 bits or less, and know that the intitial cycle count is zero the
about 2^64 possible initial pre-modulation/pre compression states are
possible, each one of which would lead to an eventual final carrier
state. It is therefore very difficult to say what the final carrier
state will be. as the f^cycles(modulation^cycles(64 bits)) = some 64
bits.

f is not exactly a sime function you know! even though the modulation
is quite simple.

Chhers.

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 ****ing genius.
Respect.

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 ****ty welfare modems stained with their decaying
brown cum, that's their problem.

Note: quit posting 4x in a row, it's annoying. When you click "reply"
on another post and it opens the field, it won't close your other
field, hence you can safely copy the quoted text from all the posts
into your (one) post.

Note: quit posting 4x in a row, it's annoying. When you click "reply"
on another post and it opens the field, it won't close your other
field, hence you can safely copy the quoted text from all the posts
into your (one) post.

- generate a random bit sequence (carrier) which both the sender and the
receiver know (compressor -decompressor)

be able to generate !=- generate, s the carrier depends on modulation
held within it why would you generate further carrier if it becomes
invalid on modulation. generate it as needed.

- change the bit state of the carrier if the user input bit tells you so
(i.e. if it's a "1" in the input

Ya tis true, and the 110 pattern generated by a 100 in the carrier is
dealt with by pushing a 1 into the input FIF

- knowing the pseudo random - or truely random, whatever - carrier
stream, the receiver knows what's changed and what's not

Ya this is true.

- doing the "input modulation" on the carrier jacko hopes the carrier
itself becomes "less random" due to the unbalancing of the 1's and 0's
frequency occured - thus achieving compression through common algorithms

No I don't. by generating the carrier in a good fashion, I say the pre-
modulation entropy is lower than 1, and the modulation itself is not
relied upon to perform any entropy reduction. In fact a subsampling of
the carrier stream is done, such that the modulation does not increase
the entropy, (or more importantly cause a modulation cascade = setting
carrier to one is not cleared in next carrier cycle so another 1 is
pushed into the input FIF ad infinitum or close there of.)

- and sending the compressed carrier to the receiver.

Ya.

cheers

>And do you have another alias "AliMac?"

I know someone who may use that alias, but I am sure he is someone
else. Apart from being called Alistair, and me not being called
Alistair, what more can I say. You should really try to focus on what
I say and not confuse me with someone else.

If it is the ali, then he is well good at FLASH and GFX.

cheers