No Lonnie I do not “hate” except excessive packaging and universally unfriendly packaging. I just wish to overcome Ignorance a huge poison of this planet
From: Lonnie Clay Sent: Sunday, June 19, 2011 8:43 PM To: epistemology@googlegroups.com Subject: [epistemology 12177] Re: Compression limit http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4nIUcRJX9-o Cingular Commercial "bff Jill" Y = Yes etc Y as YH? = You have? You hate? etc Y as YHG? = You have got? You have given? etc Y as YHGTBKM! = You have got to be kidding me! Now we are getting precision, but it could be You Hate God Then Be Killed Mother*ucker! in a conversation regarding theology. We always pulled Y= You in those cases, BUT : YM! = Your Momma! or Yearly Maintenance or.. We always referenced a "Y" but the reference pulled was determined by context (rather than being absolute) and there was always uncertainty due to limited contextual precision based upon the experiential base of the receiver. For example : YM! YM! YM! sent by a teenage boy to his girlfriend might mean Yum, yum, yum, Whereas the same message sent to a friend in response to a conversational disagreement might take the other meaning of Your Momma. I dispute vehemently your claim that context cannot be compressed, but agree wholeheartedly that compression of context results in ambiguity. Let's talk about compression some more. Suppose that you had no desire whatsoever to conceal the meaning of anything and restricted yourself to the ASCII character set. Suppose that you had a library of definitions (See my original post in the Merry Christmas series on sci.crypt). Your dictionary might, just as an example, contain ten million acronyms which were determined by reading several thousand books and noting a new acronym each time no previously encountered word pair triple etc had been found. Now rather than going from letters to hypothetical combinations of words, you have done a reverse Polish construction of your dictionary and gone from word sequences to acronyms. The only problem is your blocking factor. Suppose that you had noticed that a string of six characters contained three high frequency of occurrence pairs of characters, and put those three together to form a meaningful phrase. Alternatively, suppose that you failed to find any combination of three pairs, but were able to find a pair of triples which made a lot of sense. Suppose that triples did not work, then you could go for 2-4 or 4-2 combinations etc. Finally, as in the case of YHGTBKM, you might have a high frequency match for the entire string taken as a single stream of words. I'm going to close out this post before the computer glitches or something. DYSMP? Lonnie Courtney Clay On Sunday, June 19, 2011 11:53:48 AM UTC-7, einseele wrote: > Information in isolation, taken out of context one bit at a time, is > incompressible, and often binary. However, even a simple yes/no DOES have > context because it is subject to the experiential base of the receiving > awareness/computational entity. So *I* maintain that information is ALWAYS > compressible until it reaches a critical limit of uncertainty based upon > each unique receiver's experiential base. You are confusing information with the object used as a pointer, what you call here information is just an object. And what you call here the "context" is the information itself. Nothing in any binary or other coded lists like hex, decimal or whatever base is information but this type of object. As such it has mass and can be compressed, pretty much like you do with your zip packer. Take a text file, zip it and you will see how its volume falls, zip the zipped file and you cannot go any further down, this is because you reached a limit because of mass, no matter if this mass is a real thing or a character sequence. Context is NEVER compressed, first of al because it is always beyond mass -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Epistemology" group. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/epistemology/-/9DGJAdp41RMJ. To post to this group, send email to epistemology@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to epistemology+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/epistemology?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Epistemology" group. To post to this group, send email to epistemology@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to epistemology+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/epistemology?hl=en.
