It's a sad situation when you have to get a non-technical
judge to resolve academic conflicts like this,
but it's your head that you're banging against the wall, not mine.
If you want to appeal to authority, there's the FAQ,
which of course requires explaining the Usenet FAQ traditions;
perhaps
Matt Crawford wrote:
Plus a string of log(N) bits telling you how many times to apply the
decompression function!
Uh-oh, now goes over the judge's head ...
Hadmut Danisch wrote:
The problem is that if you ask for a string of log(N) bits, then
someone else could take this as a proof that this
On Aug 31, 2004, at 15:56, John Denker wrote:
4) Don't forget the _recursion_ argument. Take their favorite
algorithm (call it XX). If their claims are correct, XX should
be able to compress _anything_. That is, the output of XX
should _always_ be at least one bit shorter than the input.
Then
On Tue, Aug 31, 2004 at 05:07:30PM -0500, Matt Crawford wrote:
Plus a string of log(N) bits telling you how many times to apply the
decompression function!
Uh-oh, now goes over the judge's head ...
Yeah, I just posted a lengthy description why I think that this
counterexample is not a
I wrote:
4) Don't forget the _recursion_ argument. Take their favorite
algorithm (call it XX). If their claims are correct, XX should
be able to compress _anything_. That is, the output of XX
should _always_ be at least one bit shorter than the input.
Then the compound operation XX(XX(...))
Hadmut Danisch [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I need a literature reference for a simple problem of encoding/compression
theory:
comp.compression FAQ, probably question #1 given the number of times this
comes up in the newsgroup.
(I've just checked, it's question #9 in part 1. Question #73 in part
On Wed, Sep 01, 2004 at 04:02:02PM +1200, Peter Gutmann wrote:
comp.compression FAQ, probably question #1 given the number of times this
comes up in the newsgroup.
(I've just checked, it's question #9 in part 1. Question #73 in part 2 may
also be useful).
Thanks, that's a pretty good
On Tue, Aug 31, 2004 at 02:48:00PM +0200, Hadmut Danisch wrote:
It can be easily shown that there is no lossless
compression method which can effectively compress every possible
input.
Even more simply, if such a method existed, you could recursively
apply it to its output and compress
On Wed, 1 Sep 2004, Hadmut Danisch wrote:
I have often heard that example and I used it myself several times. I
do not use it anymore, because it is not that easy. There's a major
flaw in this example, and therefore it is not really a
counterexample. If the faculty found that flaw I'd be in a
On Tue, 31 Aug 2004, John Denker wrote:
I emphasize that I am only discussing messages of length N,
where N is some pre-chosen number. For concreteness, let's
choose N=10.
I repeat my assertion that _if_ XX can compress any string,
shortening it by one bit, and _if_ you know that the
Hi,
I need a literature reference for a simple problem of
encoding/compression theory:
It can be easily shown that there is no lossless
compression method which can effectively compress every possible
input. Proof is easy: In a first step, consider all
possible messages of length n bit, n0.
Hadmut Danisch wrote:
It can be easily shown that there is no lossless
compression method which can effectively compress every possible
input.
OK.
... I need a book about computer science or encoding theory,
which explicitely says that this is impossible, in a way that a person
unexperienced in
12 matches
Mail list logo
