MadHack U RIGHT!!!!!!!
i saw it on the TV!
somebody tlak about this technology fractel commprasion...
u can commpress a file to a tiny file AND u can WITH this technology zoom picture file without losing quality.

I Remember it!!!

it discoverd something like 5 years ago...
and fractels is very new subject in math...

deathlok, I see your point.

kieren brings me to another argument on this topic: Where''s proof that a ZIP, or any other compressed file, is random?

Pythius, he''s just trying to prove a concept. If his original thing still works, then he''d want to patent it or something.

quote: Original post by Vetinari

That is a much better attitude towards the situation.

Thanks. I wasn''t aware I had presented any other.

quote: Yes, your algorithm is to use 5 sub-algorithms. I consider that one algorithm.

Okay, I agree now.

quote:

Yes, that''s waht I was talking about.

But no comment on it? Do you agree with what I said, then?

quote:

Sorry, but a good compression algorithm like Huffman will not see any increases after one compression.

You just did it again! Yeesh.

"Sorry, it won''t work."
"Why not? You never give a reason."
"If it''s any good it won''t work like that."

Hmm...

quote:

If I had a doller for every time that was said, and then the real-world implementation failed....

The paper IS the real-world implementation in this case. I do exactly as a program would. The stuff in my head is the theory.

quote:

Yes, that''s what I''m saying. You know what, forget a compression algorithm. I''d like to see a data massaging and unmassaging algorithm that makes data more compressable.

kieren''s real original demo would demonstrate that. I''ll fiddle with some stuff tomorrow.

Dan: Take a guesstimate.

AP "Captain FREEDOM!!": Take a pill. I''m not even going to bother pointing out the 8 errors in your post, not to mention the irrelevance and immaturity of it.

Other AP: But they didn''t actually travel time in the sense that what they did affected something from a different time (like the killing your father argument.) Otherwise they''d have chunks of their molecules moving faster than themselves and it would make a mess. (?)

Third AP: Did they get a patent? How long ago was this?




Lack

Christianity, Creation, metric, Dvorak, and BeOS for all!

Yes, fractal compression is pretty amazing. However, it is lossy.

I think "wavelet" files use this kind of compression (someone correct me if I''m wrong) - but if it doesn''t, it''s doing something similar. But again, lossy.

aig

I do not have the time to read through all 16 pages of posts.

I have a few questions.

If what you guys are talkign about is true (5 megs to 15k) is true, then why doesnt WinZip and all the other compression utilities use it? It is virtually impossible to do something that compresses down that far.

I would love to see some proof of this technology. Binary or Source please?

From what I''ve read, it just looks like a bunch of lies - no offense intended.

I''d just like some concrete proof of whats happening. And, again, if what you said is possible with todays knowledge, why hasnt anyone done it?

Thanks

-Dan Smith
dans@3dgamedev.com

The Impossible Sub-Thread:
Please do not confuse science with mathematics. They are not the same. Science is based on observation, applied mathematics, and the Scientific Method. Most of what is considered mathemantics is concerned with logical proofs. While proofs can be flawed (to err is human) an error free proof is just that - PROOF! There are certain categories of proofs, but the only two that come to mind are geometric proofs (these can be physically done if you care to) and paradoxical proofs where you work out the problem from the solution that is not true (you have to guess or use intuition at the beginning) and the result is something that cannot (mathematically, that is) be true. There are several more. And don''t even start me on statistics where you can lie with facts.

The Speed Of Light And Faster Than Light Travel Sub-Thread:
Light changes speed depending on the medium (vacuum, air, glass) it moves thru. So light speed is a theoretical (theoretical does not mean its not proven in this use)limit that real light (photon particle/waves) never quite attains. Why? Because space is not a true vacuum.

No normal matter can go faster than light in physical space. But there are aspects to quantum physics theory () that result in information moving faster than light. Also tachyons, if I remember correctly, can move back in time. But we are not made of tachyons.

Einstein''s Special and General Theory of Relativity do not say time travel is possible. What they say is that the passing of time is relative to the observer. Any acceleration (even when I get up and walk to the fridge) causes a time dilation (change between observer and the observed). A measurable amount can now be achieved by taking two synchronized atomic clocks and leaving one home and driving the other around in a car for a few days. BTW, the Earth rotates, orbits the Sun, the Sun circles the center of the Galaxy, and the Galaxy is heading in the direction of Sagittarius (well, in some direction), so we''re all born time travelers (forward) and we''re all born time dilaters . So go take a walk and warp the space-time continuum.

One more thing and then I''ll go away for awhile. Einstein''s theories have proven themselves correct over and over and over. From the first time a star position was seen shifted by the gravity of the Sun during an eclipse, to the gravitational lenses studied by the Hubble Space Telescope, to GPS is based on his theories. Maybe someday we will find out his view is flawed, but it probably won''t be wrong either. Einstein did not prove Newton wrong. He showed that his viewpoint was too small. You can take Einstein''s theories and thru certain assumptions (like I''m located in the Earth''s gravity well) and come up with Newton''s theories. This sort of truth is generally reserved to physics because it is the most math dependent of the sciences. Dang, both Newton''s and Einstein''s theories were more thought-problems than Scientific Method.

Damn. There I go again.

Mike Roberts
aka milo
mlbobs@telocity.com

thanks for posting the message about fractal compression, MadHack! i believe that that''s what i was talking about all the time. i tried to explain to everybody that if it was possible to find a function that generated the original data, describing this function would be much shorter than actually storing all the data that it could generate.

oh, and those functions are not lossy, because they exactly represent the original data.

//.athias

___________________________________________
//.athias .\\üller mmathias@magnet.at
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯

quote: Original post by mmathias
oh, and those functions are not lossy, because they exactly represent the original data.

Yes, fractal compressors are lossy. Time for another link: http://www.faqs.org/faqs/compression-faq/part2/section-8.html

aig

Dan, I meant it was obviously quite a few.

And your last statement doesn''t necessarily mean anything at all. If every idea was discarded because it seemed to simple to be new, we wouldn''t be using computers today.

AP: You cannot possibly tell any of my physical attributes from what I have posted in this thread.


Lack

Christianity, Creation, metric, Dvorak, and BeOS for all!

quote:
kieren brings me to another argument on this topic: Where''s proof that a ZIP, or any other compressed file, is random?

I thought this was well explained. It''s not ''random'' as such, but it might as well be. By saying it''s random we say that it does not contain enough patterns to be compressable. This is contained in the same proof I mentioned earlier about Huffman encoding being optimal. Let me make sure there is no misunderstanding this: There are not enough patterns in a compresssed file to compress it further. This is not my ''opinion''.

quote:
Thanks. I wasn''t aware I had presented any other.

Well, you did and continue to. Your attitude seems to be ''I have never worked with compression before, but I will talk like I have.''

quote:
Yes, your algorithm is to use 5 sub-algorithms. I consider that one algorithm.

Okay, I agree now.

And you agreed earlier that no one algorithm can compress all files of length n, so your only hope now is this ''data massasging'', which I still have yet to hear any way of it to be implemented. That is, unless data massaging and windowing are the same thing.

quote:

Yes, that''s waht I was talking about.

But no comment on it? Do you agree with what I said, then?

I agree that there is an off chance that there could be more patterns in a specific bit window than another. I don''t agree that it makes any difference as to how well it would be compressed.

quote:
Sorry, but a good compression algorithm like Huffman will not see any increases after one compression.

You just did it again! Yeesh.

"Sorry, it won''t work."
"Why not? You never give a reason."
"If it''s any good it won''t work like that."

Hmm...

I said you could find the proof in any standard algorithm textbook, and that it is too long and complicated to put here. You even said you would like to study it.

quote:

If I had a doller for every time that was said, and then the real-world implementation failed.... The paper IS the real-world implementation in this case. I do exactly as a program would. The stuff in my head is the theory.

I am awaiting the proof behind those words. I stand by my statement.

quote:
kieren''s real original demo would demonstrate that. I''ll fiddle with some stuff tomorrow.

I cannot believe that you still believe in kieren now. All he implemented was Huffman, which is nothing new.

quote:
Other AP: But they didn''t actually travel time in the sense that what they did affected something from a different time (like the killing your father argument.) Otherwise they''d have chunks of their molecules moving faster than themselves and it would make a mess. (?)

Here you go again taking your opinion on something you obviously don''t understand. I don''t mind you expressing your opinion or challenging statements, but please don''t comment like you know what your talking about. Implement, then talk.

For your information, Einstien theorized that time travels at a different time depending on how fast you move. This is nothing new. Forward time travel has long been known to exist (Since around 1930 +/- a few years)


Mike

Yeah, I heard of some experiment where they took two perfectly syncronized atomic clocks, put one in an aircraft and flew it around for a while while the other sat on the ground, and when they compared the times they were ever so slightly off. Kinda spooky isn''t it =]