Topic: Crypto Compression Concept Worth Big Money - I Did It! - page 4. (Read 13895 times)

Hey guys, you won't believe it,

a computer company is now going live with a version of Jan Sloot's theorum for data compression ... they even have videos to show it is working.

http://jansloot.telcomsoft.nl/    

Click on "Project 7" link (middle left) you will see the video.  This ... this is mind blowing.  I was right.  But maybe not about how MUCH compression total ... it says a Factor of 4, does that mean it's 4 times more efficient?   So a 4 GB file becomes a 1GB file?  Is that how "factor of 4" works?

Let me know what they are doing, if you can find some place to read in English (which I can't yet) ...  

There are no non-binary computers but in theory you could develop one it wouldn't improve storage though.  Once you abstract everything away it has a physical manifestation (magnetic charge on a disk, high or low signal in ram circuit, transistors in silicon).  Using trinary would be possible but everything would take as much space.  For example most flash ram right now stores 1.5 bits per cell reducing the cell count by 1/3 for a given amount of storage space.

As for quantum computing, no it also works using binary however it involves superposition.  In classical mechanics a bit (or lightswitch if it helps to visualize it) has only two possible states 1=on or 0=off.  Either state can exist but only one state at a time.  In quantum mechanics a qubit can be simultaneously both on and off.  This concept is expanded to larger sets of bits.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_computer

While you were mocking me, you inadvertantly summed up my theorim perfectly, making it sound totally awesome.  You have quite a gift for boiling down all my long verbages into one tight, condensed grouping that makes perfect sense.  I can see from this (no joke) that you are more than likely a master programmer with a gift for tight, efficient code.  People who can do this with words can do this even better with coding.

Oh, and it's funny too.  Give the man props!

Yes, actually, math is even more "universal" as the mathematical laws would be true in any possible universe, even if it were entirely different from the one we live in.
You would really do well to learn how mathematical proofs work, at least as much to understand when someone points out a flaw in an idea that you had. If something has been mathematically proven to be impossible, there is no "try harder" or "maybe in 200 years someone will find a way". It is impossible and it would be impossible in every other universe that could possibly exist.

Onkel Paul

This.  The concept is called perfect compression* and I pointed that out to the OP.


* Note perfect means all inputs are reduces in size it doesn't necessarily imply a high level of compression.  If you found an algorithm which can reduce all inputs by 0.0000000001% then you have found an impossibility.

I think it would make for a neat 'secret decoder ring' type of encryption, especially for kids learning about maths or computing.
Each byte or byte sequence is assumed to occur in Pi somewhere, so you could encrypt your messages by replacing each byte, pair of bytes, etc... with the corresponding index of that next byte sequence in Pi. Essentially a book cipher, with Pi as the cipher, so no need to share the book.
It will increase, not decrease, the length of your message, but would be a fun computing project.

On the contrary, I think 200 years from now 1+1 will still be 2.


Thanks and sympathy goes to you for starting such an intriguing thread  

Why don't you learn how to program?
This will help you experiment and have fun

However you approach it, it is simply impossible to design a lossless compression algorithm that reduces the size of all possible input files given to it.

Is it possible to make a formula to just make a solution set instead of imaging or presenting the binaries?

Instead of file a= 101010001010101010 = 1 * forumula * metadata * index * convert to binary * encode binary ?

Okay guys, no sense beating my head in again and again with iterations of less and less funny jokes.  It's like you're taking your own jokes and compressing them.  And then taking that compressed joke and compressing it again into a smaller, less funny joke.  Until it's you beating my head in for daring to try to imagine something cool.

You win.  I can see the end of the road for this argument.  But I didn't want to give up that easy, you know?  It wouldn't make sense for me to give up that easy after spending 3 years on it.  So you have to understand me at least, right?  Isn't that enough for a tad bit of sympathy.  At least BurtW gave me some love for making him think and he said he enjoyed my thread at the very least.  And I had fun talking with all of you.  Probably the most fun I've had in years back when I first came to China and had like 12 friends and four girlfriends at the same time.  Life was smoking back then, but tapered off pretty rapidly into tedium and boredom.  There are only a few highlights in one's life when you reach over 40 like me.  But anyway, thanks again for all your hard work, and for taking the time to respond to this fanciful imagination.

I will not add more to this thread but I may be back with another idea, but I won't waste your time with that idea until I see how my experiments go.  At this point, I haven't considered that idea long enough to be able to withstand your criticisms of it until I've gone over it all much more deeply.  I think I have another cool way to do compression that will be awesome, but it won't be as awesome as the philosopher's stone I started with.  I guess it wasn't awesome anyway, since it won't work.

But let me ask you all a serious question, and yes, it's related to this very topic which I am closing in the next few posts after your responses end:

Let's say, just for argument, that a way existed to compress huge movies down to 4k or 64k.  That it could be done.  (I'm just saying WHAT IF here, so follow along with me) ...  your approach, indeed all of the most intelligent amongst you's approaches, have been to consider the mathematical probabilities of that plan working.  And if the math says it can't be done, you don't do it.  So let's say a way did exist, and you (because of your adherance to math statistics telling you what can't be done) you never EVEN TRY.  

In sports they say (to encourage athletes who want to give up) that you can only make a basket if you're willing to make a throw.  Am I wrong to try?  Do you think everyone should always listen to mathematical probabilities and not even try?  Because if that were the case, maybe the Universe itself (which is a kind of universal intelligence we are discovering more and more about every day, that is kind of alive in some way, universally sentient) wouldn't be here?  Because the chances of there being life are so small, nearly impossible, that for it to exist is indeed something to ponder deeply.  I'm just saying.  If we never take a shot, we can't ever make a basket.  Don't let math dictate your life, dictate your own life and screw the math is what I say.

The maths are the laws of the universe, and a universal language, but I seriously believe that in 200 years from now (if WW3 doesn't end us "coming soon to a nation near you!") we will have found all the ways to do these same things I'm proposing, because of someone like me didn't listen to the rules and tried it for goddsake.

Thanks for your time.

Encoding all possible one to three byte files using only 62 printable characters gives a total of 426 resulting index values, compared to the 242234 that would be required for full uniqueness.
Of those 426 values, only 26 were uniquely mapped to by a single string.
Lowest used index was 76, highest was 790. (These indexes all start with 1 = the 3 of 3.14).
Most popular index was 517, which was mapped to by 18891 different strings.

Reply by B(asic)Miner:
... but, but, we can just look at all the gazillion possible collisions and pick the one  which contain your porn collection - it will be pretty obvious when you try to look inside it.

I don't think your poo fetish porn will compress all that well. 

We can store the entire internet in 4KB! (that is including my porn collection... and let me assure you that's HUGE!)