For some reason Google Groups stopped sending me daily digests from
comp.compression. The fact that it took me a month to notice is
interesting all in itself.
Ernst is working on trying to factor the million digit number.
As I've mentioned before, if the million digit number just happened to
be prime, it would probably result in a win for someone. The prime
number theorem says that the number of primes below 10^1000000 is
4.3*10^999993.
This means the prime can be denoted by a number that saves six+ digits
over the million digit file.
Feed that number into a computational engine that has two
instructions: 1) calculate prime n, 2) print result
And you have defeated the million digit file by four bytes. I would
definitely count it as a win.
But this unlikely result brings up the more important question: why do
attempts to use factoring, combinatorial techniques, and mathematical
series inevitably result in derision in this NG?
Mostly because they have no track record. And they have no track
record because they don't usually produce useful results.
The interesting data that we want to compress is based on human
language and perception - even executable code is based on human
language. And in that domain, factoring and combinations don't produce
useful results, nor is it likely they will. The data domain is kind of
more fractally than arithmeticy.
From time to time there might be crossovers, but AFAIK nobody has
really found anything interesting down these paths.
If we were trying to compress, say, data generated by automota with a
mathematical bent, it might be a completely different story. But we're
not.
If someone found a way to transform one domain to the other, then we
might really see something. But it seems like a pretty big problem to
get there.
> For some reason Google Groups stopped sending me daily digests from
> comp.compression. The fact that it took me a month to notice is
> interesting all in itself.
> Ernst is working on trying to factor the million digit number.
> As I've mentioned before, if the million digit number just happened to
> be prime, it would probably result in a win for someone. The prime
> number theorem says that the number of primes below 10^1000000 is
> 4.3*10^999993.
> This means the prime can be denoted by a number that saves six+ digits
> over the million digit file.
> Feed that number into a computational engine that has two
> instructions: 1) calculate prime n, 2) print result
> And you have defeated the million digit file by four bytes. I would
> definitely count it as a win.
> But this unlikely result brings up the more important question: why udo
> attempts to use factoring, combinatorial techniques, and mathematical
> series inevitably result in derision in this NG?
> Mostly because they have no track record. And they have no track
> record because they don't usually produce useful results.
> The interesting data that we want to compress is based on human
> language and perception - even executable code is based on human
> language. And in that domain, factoring and combinations don't produce
> useful results, nor is it likely they will. The data domain is kind of
> more fractally than arithmeticy.
> From time to time there might be crossovers, but AFAIK nobody has
> really found anything interesting down these paths.
> If we were trying to compress, say, data generated by automota with a
> mathematical bent, it might be a completely different story. But we're
> not.
> If someone found a way to transform one domain to the other, then we
> might really see something. But it seems like a pretty big problem to
> get there.
> - Mark
Mark :
Applauds than better than most insights shared that factoring,
combinatorics , mathematical series 'may yet' produce the results
( albeit most difficult ) but count as unlikely because so far all
results not yet support .... however this not mathematics ruled out
thought the challenge does not involve every days English type data,
specifically solely deal with only 'random' fair coin toss type
automata generated domain... .hence not dependent on attaining
crossover of 'fractal' domain into 'arithmeticity' domain
Matter of fact would be useful if you would elaborate on 'domains'
mentioned for the forum...
RE : in your web homepage discussions you offer to co-solve the Clay
Institute 7 remaining items & share the prize...... how confident are
you you have already 'mapped out' the proof solution routes to these ?
I will be in touch private email soon , on usual standard
confidentialiatity of course
> For some reason Google Groups stopped sending me daily digests from
> comp.compression. The fact that it took me a month to notice is
> interesting all in itself.
> Ernst is working on trying to factor the million digit number.
> As I've mentioned before, if the million digit number just happened to
> be prime, it would probably result in a win for someone. The prime
> number theorem says that the number of primes below 10^1000000 is
> 4.3*10^999993.
> This means the prime can be denoted by a number that saves six+ digits
> over the million digit file.
> Feed that number into a computational engine that has two
> instructions: 1) calculate prime n, 2) print result
> And you have defeated the million digit file by four bytes. I would
> definitely count it as a win.
> But this unlikely result brings up the more important question: why do
> attempts to use factoring, combinatorial techniques, and mathematical
> series inevitably result in derision in this NG?
> Mostly because they have no track record. And they have no track
> record because they don't usually produce useful results.
> The interesting data that we want to compress is based on human
> language and perception - even executable code is based on human
> language. And in that domain, factoring and combinations don't produce
> useful results, nor is it likely they will. The data domain is kind of
> more fractally than arithmeticy.
> From time to time there might be crossovers, but AFAIK nobody has
> really found anything interesting down these paths.
> If we were trying to compress, say, data generated by automota with a
> mathematical bent, it might be a completely different story. But we're
> not.
> If someone found a way to transform one domain to the other, then we
> might really see something. But it seems like a pretty big problem to
> get there.
> - Mark
Factoring and compression are as closely related as, say, fish and
bicycling. These are utterly and completely different topics. When I
began to look at compression, I too, fumbled around, trying out
different approaches, But nothing,,,
Of course we all know the story about an alien who comes to earth,
discovers and organizes all human learning and understanding, and then
represents this massive quantity of knowledge as a bit-string, places
a binary point to the left of the binary sequence, and proceeds to
notch a stick at the position indicated. To which I say:
> On Feb 5, 3:08 pm, Mark Nelson <snorkel...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > For some reason Google Groups stopped sending me daily digests from
> > comp.compression. The fact that it took me a month to notice is
> > interesting all in itself.
> > Ernst is working on trying to factor the million digit number.
> > As I've mentioned before, if the million digit number just happened to
> > be prime, it would probably result in a win for someone. The prime
> > number theorem says that the number of primes below 10^1000000 is
> > 4.3*10^999993.
> > This means the prime can be denoted by a number that saves six+ digits
> > over the million digit file.
> > Feed that number into a computational engine that has two
> > instructions: 1) calculate prime n, 2) print result
> > And you have defeated the million digit file by four bytes. I would
> > definitely count it as a win.
> > But this unlikely result brings up the more important question: why do
> > attempts to use factoring, combinatorial techniques, and mathematical
> > series inevitably result in derision in this NG?
> > Mostly because they have no track record. And they have no track
> > record because they don't usually produce useful results.
> > The interesting data that we want to compress is based on human
> > language and perception - even executable code is based on human
> > language. And in that domain, factoring and combinations don't produce
> > useful results, nor is it likely they will. The data domain is kind of
> > more fractally than arithmeticy.
> > From time to time there might be crossovers, but AFAIK nobody has
> > really found anything interesting down these paths.
> > If we were trying to compress, say, data generated by automota with a
> > mathematical bent, it might be a completely different story. But we're
> > not.
> > If someone found a way to transform one domain to the other, then we
> > might really see something. But it seems like a pretty big problem to
> > get there.
> > - Mark
> Factoring and compression are as closely related as, say, fish and
> bicycling. These are utterly and completely different topics. When I
> began to look at compression, I too, fumbled around, trying out
> different approaches, But nothing,,,
> Of course we all know the story about an alien who comes to earth,
> discovers and organizes all human learning and understanding, and then
> represents this massive quantity of knowledge as a bit-string, places
> a binary point to the left of the binary sequence, and proceeds to
> notch a stick at the position indicated. To which I say:
> Good work if you can get it...
What may have been over looked is that Sebastian inserted the idea
that I was trying to compress using factoring. I never wrote that I am
trying to compress by factoring because I am not.
I considered Mark's suggestion of generating the Nth prime but it
would need to function for all strings to be practical and in the
specific case of the third factor of MDN that third may or may not be
prime but it is huge and so there is a lot of cpu time to find out if
it is composite or prime. The idea of factoring in general would work
if the strings share enough factors in common but that too is
dependant on the data. But this is digression from the hash function
homework.
I am designing my first hash functions. The observation and report
of seeing factors in the recursive modulus "stream" was shared almost
directly with this NG after a couple requests in Mr. Nelson's forum
for the Million Digit Challenge.
I didn't expect a fight since I was following what rules I gleaned
from here. I presented the discovery, provided proof and asked
questions sharing it with everyone. However, each year I also have to
remind people that insults such as crank and kook are offensive and
each year it seems to be ignored. I am glad this is far out in the
open now. Perhaps some of you will avoid the bullying if you think I
will fight back. Not everyone will be alike in this world but we all
have two things in common that can serve as a basis for friendship and
they are; Everyone dies and no one knows everything.
As for the hash function design you have to admit that if all the
results from recursive modulus are strung together it is an output of
a long string of bits for an input of a small string of bits and that
is the attraction.
The problem I have currently is I have several choices of sources of
large data from small data to choose from so I am still deciding which
is more dependable. No Worry I am not asking for help here. The
recursive modulus just added more complexity to the deliberations is
all.
I simply was excited and sought out the friends to chat it up. If we
can stop the war it will be nicer for all of us. Compressing random
data is fringe yes but, for me it is a gateway to discovery.
I hope this helps clear the air.. I really am doing good works and I
am not spamming the NG with irrational boasts. This was nit-picking a
fight and insults and it took all of us to make it happen.
I care about working on Million Digit Challenge and there may be no
solution but it is still fun to discover what I can. Turn over the
proverbial rocks and see what may have been missed if anything and
simply enjoy the C language and my new 8-core! I realized that I use
C as my math and that my proofs are programs. That is one reason
there is a disconnect between some of you and I. Some of you think
math first code second.
On Feb 6, 12:17 pm, Ernst <Ernst_B...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> What may have been over looked is that Sebastian inserted the idea
> that I was trying to compress using factoring. I never wrote that I am
> trying to compress by factoring because I am not.
Then why are you posting about factoring in comp.compression?
Shouldn't you be posting in a math or cryptography group instead?
On Feb 6, 2:05 pm, Jim Leonard <mobyga...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Feb 6, 12:17 pm, Ernst <Ernst_B...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> > What may have been over looked is that Sebastian inserted the idea
> > that I was trying to compress using factoring. I never wrote that I am
> > trying to compress by factoring because I am not.
> Then why are you posting about factoring in comp.compression?
> Shouldn't you be posting in a math or cryptography group instead?
Because it is related to encoding and data compression is encoding.
Stop and think I was designing a hash code not factoring when I saw
the factors in the stream of output.
Perhaps there is no crime here at all.
This is a good a way to say it and as good of a place. Jim has asked
the best questions of all of you so far and I thank Jim.
To Jim and all.
It is possible that there are only three factors of million digit
"number" as imported from the file into GMP.
My import settings I can disclose so we are all on the same page.
A friend has said he independently confirmed the third factor. He is
not using my software so I value his opinion but it's open to
verification of both the number and the software I am using to do it.
It is possible we have been trying to compress a large prime number
times 2^2
What will be needed is to determine if the third factor is prime or
composite. Recursive Modulus has shown it will emit both.
What needs to happen here is I must replace the cpu in the quad core
and it is now a speciality part. Once I have that machine back in
service then it can be dedicated to searching for factors.
Also there is a test in GMP that I was running when the old CPU let
me know it had heat issues.
I posted on Marks site that I am open to working with others to
further factor that third factor and if we use recursive modulus then
anyone helping can work blocks of numbers and together we can shorten
the search time.
I can dedicate 4 cores to the process so I can run 4 blocks at a
time.
Some additional programming is needed on the software to make it a
utility so that too is open to share.
Perhaps it is as simple as starting the search with M=1 and M++
instead of M = N-1 and M-- to find further factors using recursive
modulus. I admit I am chomping at the bit to write that version and
run it when I get access to the drives back
So here is an olive branch. I am a common man and this finding
factors of this new number is of unknown importance but I open it to
the Friends here if you want.
On the inside track here a friend and I are looking at ways to
predict if there will be a factor other than 1 early in sequence.
That would be helpful. That too is open to discussion.
I trust that knowing what exactly we have here in the third factor
can help us understand the nature of things. It would be helpful for
my reasoning to know have a prime or not since I assumed that it
wasn't. Even thought and expected a flood of small factors to stream
out but the whole event took a couple of seconds and there were
three.
So Jim, I think all tools are useful and if we exchange compress for
the word encode then what I am doing isn't such sin I think. Also Jim
if I remember right these guys will tell you data modelling is part of
data compression. Maybe it won't hurt to see what kind of number the
third one is even though this will be a factoring effort on the side
as we all work other things.
I trust my thoughts are kind and my words soft. I would like to be
this way if I can in this forum.
> The interesting data that we want to compress is based on human
> language and perception - even executable code is based on human
> language. And in that domain, factoring and combinations don't produce
> useful results, nor is it likely they will. The data domain is kind of
> more fractally than arithmeticy.
> From time to time there might be crossovers, but AFAIK nobody has
> really found anything interesting down these paths.
> If we were trying to compress, say, data generated by automota with a
> mathematical bent, it might be a completely different story. But we're
> not.
> If someone found a way to transform one domain to the other, then we
> might really see something. But it seems like a pretty big problem to
> get there.
> - Mark
Mark:
I think this is the 'secret sauce' Thomas enquired about how the
Russian monopolised English text compression prizes... .likely he
attained crossover from 'fractal' to 'arithmeticity', simple enough
for him to distant from this if not
Think this is not a 'big problem' ....may explore co-develop this
with you, should his 'secret technique' NOT already utilises 'domain
crossover'
> For some reason Google Groups stopped sending me daily digests from
> comp.compression. The fact that it took me a month to notice is
> interesting all in itself.
> Ernst is working on trying to factor the million digit number.
> As I've mentioned before, if the million digit number just happened to
> be prime, it would probably result in a win for someone. The prime
> number theorem says that the number of primes below 10^1000000 is
> 4.3*10^999993.
> This means the prime can be denoted by a number that saves six+ digits
> over the million digit file.
> Feed that number into a computational engine that has two
> instructions: 1) calculate prime n, 2) print result
> And you have defeated the million digit file by four bytes. I would
> definitely count it as a win.
> But this unlikely result brings up the more important question: why do
> attempts to use factoring, combinatorial techniques, and mathematical
> series inevitably result in derision in this NG?
> Mostly because they have no track record. And they have no track
> record because they don't usually produce useful results.
> The interesting data that we want to compress is based on human
> language and perception - even executable code is based on human
> language. And in that domain, factoring and combinations don't produce
> useful results, nor is it likely they will. The data domain is kind of
> more fractally than arithmeticy.
> From time to time there might be crossovers, but AFAIK nobody has
> really found anything interesting down these paths.
> If we were trying to compress, say, data generated by automota with a
> mathematical bent, it might be a completely different story. But we're
> not.
> If someone found a way to transform one domain to the other, then we
> might really see something. But it seems like a pretty big problem to
> get there.
> - Mark
Well, to be fair. The interesting truth is that once a not-too-clever mathematician latches onto a concept like a pitbull dog they usually want some payoff for all of their computation efforts. The proper term (one I invented quite a while back without seeking fame for it), is "EMOTIONAL INVESTMENT". It is the same psychological core reason for why gamblers obsessively bet themselves to poverty seeking to regain money lost foolishly (emotions are ruling their brain rather than cold logical deduction).
It may not help the fields of Data Compression (usually never given how slow this field progresses), but it oftentimes will find applications in a variety of Number Theory fields like Data Encryption (the inverse enemy of Data Compression to a degree). It can help on noise signal processing sometimes or pop up as a new Error Correction Coding. You never really know until the inventor or discoverer has enough lateral thinking skills to convert a concept failure into a reshaped concept win.
Once you get past the obvious problems of Escape Characters and code function indexing costs, the mental discipline of Data Compression becomes the root of many useful ideas which just need a bit of coaxing to convert to profitable programs. However, you cannot reach many of the right states of mind without going past the newbie trial & fail stages and the heavy research into what others have done. Also you should never forget the far-too-true phrase, "You cannot fix Stupidity." You can help people as much as you prefer, but you can never correct their personal genetic limitation on intellectual capacity with mere words and tutoring alone.
> > For some reason Google Groups stopped sending me daily digests from
> > comp.compression. The fact that it took me a month to notice is
> > interesting all in itself.
> > Ernst is working on trying to factor the million digit number.
> > As I've mentioned before, if the million digit number just happened to
> > be prime, it would probably result in a win for someone. The prime
> > number theorem says that the number of primes below 10^1000000 is
> > 4.3*10^999993.
> > This means the prime can be denoted by a number that saves six+ digits
> > over the million digit file.
> > Feed that number into a computational engine that has two
> > instructions: 1) calculate prime n, 2) print result
> > And you have defeated the million digit file by four bytes. I would
> > definitely count it as a win.
> > But this unlikely result brings up the more important question: why do
> > attempts to use factoring, combinatorial techniques, and mathematical
> > series inevitably result in derision in this NG?
> > Mostly because they have no track record. And they have no track
> > record because they don't usually produce useful results.
> > The interesting data that we want to compress is based on human
> > language and perception - even executable code is based on human
> > language. And in that domain, factoring and combinations don't produce
> > useful results, nor is it likely they will. The data domain is kind of
> > more fractally than arithmeticy.
> > From time to time there might be crossovers, but AFAIK nobody has
> > really found anything interesting down these paths.
> > If we were trying to compress, say, data generated by automota with a
> > mathematical bent, it might be a completely different story. But we're
> > not.
> > If someone found a way to transform one domain to the other, then we
> > might really see something. But it seems like a pretty big problem to
> > get there.
> > - Mark
> Well, to be fair. The interesting truth is that once a not-too-clever
> mathematician latches onto a concept like a pitbull dog they usually want
> some payoff for all of their computation efforts. The proper term (one I
> invented quite a while back without seeking fame for it), is "EMOTIONAL
> INVESTMENT". It is the same psychological core reason for why gamblers
> obsessively bet themselves to poverty seeking to regain money lost foolishly
> (emotions are ruling their brain rather than cold logical deduction).
> It may not help the fields of Data Compression (usually never given how
> slow this field progresses), but it oftentimes will find applications in a
> variety of Number Theory fields like Data Encryption (the inverse enemy of
> Data Compression to a degree). It can help on noise signal processing
> sometimes or pop up as a new Error Correction Coding. You never really know
> until the inventor or discoverer has enough lateral thinking skills to
> convert a concept failure into a reshaped concept win.
> Once you get past the obvious problems of Escape Characters and code
> function indexing costs, the mental discipline of Data Compression becomes
> the root of many useful ideas which just need a bit of coaxing to convert to
> profitable programs. However, you cannot reach many of the right states of
> mind without going past the newbie trial & fail stages and the heavy
> research into what others have done. Also you should never forget the
> far-too-true phrase, "You cannot fix Stupidity." You can help people as much
> as you prefer, but you can never correct their personal genetic limitation
> on intellectual capacity with mere words and tutoring alone.
There can be other reasons to seek answers than money or emotion.
There is a beauty in the Universe to behold and that itself is a
reward.
> Because it is related to encoding and data compression is encoding.
> Stop and think I was designing a hash code not factoring when I saw
> the factors in the stream of output.
XML is also encoding. Thus, should I post XML related questions here?
> It is possible that there are only three factors of million digit
> "number" as imported from the file into GMP.
Are you aware that the probabilities are against you? The probability that a random number between 0 and x is prime is approximately 1/log(x), which means that the probability that a number of a million digits is approximately prime is approximately (up to an unimportant factor of about three, no need to be picky about this) one million to one against you. If you have found three factors already, you can apply the same argument again to the third factor just to get an idea on your chances.
> It is possible we have been trying to compress a large prime number
> times 2^2
> What will be needed is to determine if the third factor is prime or
> composite. Recursive Modulus has shown it will emit both.
Likely not because it is not a very powerful method. Again, why don't you do your homework and read about what I have suggested. "Factoring by the rho method" is much more powerful, but likely neither the top-notch method as I'm not an expert in the field. Have you made an estimate how long this may take?
> What needs to happen here is I must replace the cpu in the quad core
> and it is now a speciality part.
No, not at all. This will probably improve computation time by a factor of two to four, a rather unimportant factor if the method you picked is unsuitable. Honestly, whether I have to wait ten or twenty years for a result I do not bother much. I wouldn't accept either time.
> I trust that knowing what exactly we have here in the third factor
> can help us understand the nature of things.
About what, precisely? Prime-probabilities are actually known:
and this is just the outcome of a five minute research, to give you some ideas. What exactly do you want to learn from a single number?
Analyzing the methods would be beneficial, but as already stated, why don't you do some minimal research and improve your methods, or at least try to bring you up to date?
> There can be other reasons to seek answers than money or emotion.
> There is a beauty in the Universe to behold and that itself is a
> reward.
> Just a thought.
No arguments there, but unless you grow your own food on tax-free land, hunt your own food, and have a clean water source, then somehow the money to run the electricity + Internet connection has to appear.
Many people who tried, "Living on Love" alone tended to starve to death.
The people who tried, "Laying on My Back Moaning and Pretending Love" tended to come down with a number of rather unpleasant sexually-transmitted diseases with rather painful dripping sores.
The folks who tried, "Living Off A Spouse (in exchange for occasional sex, perpetual whiny nagging, squandering money recklessly, and buying new woman shoes every week)" tended to end up rather hated and no better off if society was not geared to illegally financially-enslaving a man long after the Marriage Contract was rendered null & void.
Curiosity is great. I believe most folks posting here are addicted to learning (well at least READING about) new things regularly. There is a whole universe out there that needs comprehension and boundless curiosity is the only way to achieve that goal at a reasonable pace. It never hurts too much to point good folks in the right directions for good answers. Be very wary of the creeps that seek easy knowledge without the efforts to understand that knowledge. Helping a person unfit to be a doctor pass Medical School exams means that in the future the odds are very high that many innocent people will be subject to an unfit physician's dangerous care practices with a decent probability of easily preventable premature deaths of many good people as a result of a far-too-helpful intelligent (but not wise) person's meddling.
Thankfully the field of Data Compression rarely leads to mass-deaths of good people as gross mathematical incompetence & inept programming tends to guarantee zero financial success. This did not stop the Microsoft (too many turds in the soup pot) Corporation from having their software lock up the systems on an USA aircraft carrier though.
Ernst wrote:
> What may have been over looked is that Sebastian inserted the idea
> that I was trying to compress using factoring. I never wrote that I am
> trying to compress by factoring because I am not.
Are you using factoring as a preprocessing step in a compression
scheme or are you simply posting off topic factoring threads in the
compressions newsgroup. From your words you claimed factoring was
attractive because is gave a longer string of bits (see below). You
never clearly stated what would happen next even when asked. So I ask
now. Does this factoring have anything to do with you compression
idea?
> As for the hash function design you have to admit that if all the
> results from recursive modulus are strung together it is an output of
> a long string of bits for an input of a small string of bits and that
> is the attraction.
> The recursive modulus just added more complexity to the
> deliberations is all.
Those deliberations happened over a hundred years ago.
> Ernst wrote:
> > What may have been over looked is that Sebastian inserted the idea
> > that I was trying to compress using factoring. I never wrote that I am
> > trying to compress by factoring because I am not.
> Are you using factoring as a preprocessing step in a compression
> scheme or are you simply posting off topic factoring threads in the
> compressions newsgroup. From your words you claimed factoring was
> attractive because is gave a longer string of bits (see below). You
> never clearly stated what would happen next even when asked. So I ask
> now. Does this factoring have anything to do with you compression
> idea?
> > As for the hash function design you have to admit that if all the
> > results from recursive modulus are strung together it is an output of
> > a long string of bits for an input of a small string of bits and that
> > is the attraction.
> > The recursive modulus just added more complexity to the
> > deliberations is all.
> Those deliberations happened over a hundred years ago.
> > There can be other reasons to seek answers than money or emotion.
> > There is a beauty in the Universe to behold and that itself is a
> > reward.
> > Just a thought.
> No arguments there, but unless you grow your own food on tax-free land,
> hunt your own food, and have a clean water source, then somehow the money to
> run the electricity + Internet connection has to appear.
> Many people who tried, "Living on Love" alone tended to starve to death.
> The people who tried, "Laying on My Back Moaning and Pretending Love"
> tended to come down with a number of rather unpleasant sexually-transmitted
> diseases with rather painful dripping sores.
> The folks who tried, "Living Off A Spouse (in exchange for occasional
> sex, perpetual whiny nagging, squandering money recklessly, and buying new
> woman shoes every week)" tended to end up rather hated and no better off if
> society was not geared to illegally financially-enslaving a man long after
> the Marriage Contract was rendered null & void.
> Curiosity is great. I believe most folks posting here are addicted to
> learning (well at least READING about) new things regularly. There is a
> whole universe out there that needs comprehension and boundless curiosity is
> the only way to achieve that goal at a reasonable pace. It never hurts too
> much to point good folks in the right directions for good answers. Be very
> wary of the creeps that seek easy knowledge without the efforts to
> understand that knowledge. Helping a person unfit to be a doctor pass
> Medical School exams means that in the future the odds are very high that
> many innocent people will be subject to an unfit physician's dangerous care
> practices with a decent probability of easily preventable premature deaths
> of many good people as a result of a far-too-helpful intelligent (but not
> wise) person's meddling.
> Thankfully the field of Data Compression rarely leads to mass-deaths of
> good people as gross mathematical incompetence & inept programming tends to
> guarantee zero financial success. This did not stop the Microsoft (too many
> turds in the soup pot) Corporation from having their software lock up the
> systems on an USA aircraft carrier though.
> A bit of one of our world's generation of great Philosopher-Comedians.
> Be wary of what you wish for and unleash upon the world.
Cool.. Being isolated while I ponder the depths of what infinities are
obviously all about it's good to get the small social interaction when
it comes to the hobbies.
I am not befuddled and trying to find a path.
So I have to look into Pi now.
Here is what I have seen that I an considering adapting to generate
Pi in Hex base.
It is strange in that I don't get the use of main(j) can the main
call itself recursively?
I just started looking at generating trans.. I don't intend to
philosophize Transcendental numbers but the more I thought about the
Torrent replacement project the more I thought I could index things in
a way that could be smaller than a source.
This is a theory I am now ready to explore. It is data compression
related so comp.compression folks can sleep easy tonight as I am not
violating the chastity of this forum
So uh.. I can save myself the reinventing the wheel with some C code
that generates Pi to N hex digits. Any C-code links with no strings
attached?
Ernst wrote:
> On Feb 8, 10:14 am, stan <smo...@exis.net> wrote:
>> Are you using factoring as a preprocessing step in a compression
>> scheme or are you simply posting off topic factoring threads in the
>> compressions newsgroup. From your words you claimed factoring was
>> attractive because is gave a longer string of bits (see below). You
>> never clearly stated what would happen next even when asked. So I ask
>> now. Does this factoring have anything to do with you compression
>> idea?
<snip>
> I am simply interacting for social gratification.
I see. I was having a hard time figuring out what your plan or goal
could be and I figured I was just missing it. So it's good to see you
don't actually have a plan or goal; I wasn't "missing" anything.
I do applaud your direct honesty in admitting your purpose is
trolling. It really is a time saver.
> If you don't like it go suck an egg.
I'll go out on a limb with a prediction. Your lack of understanding of
what usenet is and is not will lead to your continued frustration and
will further erode both your manners and behavior.
I further predict that your barking orders at people will never lead
to any measureable result.
> Ernst wrote:
> > On Feb 8, 10:14 am, stan <smo...@exis.net> wrote:
> >> Are you using factoring as a preprocessing step in a compression
> >> scheme or are you simply posting off topic factoring threads in the
> >> compressions newsgroup. From your words you claimed factoring was
> >> attractive because is gave a longer string of bits (see below). You
> >> never clearly stated what would happen next even when asked. So I ask
> >> now. Does this factoring have anything to do with you compression
> >> idea?
> <snip>
> > I am simply interacting for social gratification.
> I see. I was having a hard time figuring out what your plan or goal
> could be and I figured I was just missing it. So it's good to see you
> don't actually have a plan or goal; I wasn't "missing" anything.
> I do applaud your direct honesty in admitting your purpose is
> trolling. It really is a time saver.
> > If you don't like it go suck an egg.
> I'll go out on a limb with a prediction. Your lack of understanding of
> what usenet is and is not will lead to your continued frustration and
> will further erode both your manners and behavior.
> I further predict that your barking orders at people will never lead
> to any measureable result.
Fuck that.
Pi has to repeat!~
Think about this: Given probability and domain sampling of say 64 bit
lengths but that is arbitrary,
Just how many times a 64bit pattern can be expressed is bounded.
<Ernst_B...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>On Feb 10, 6:31 pm, stan <smo...@exis.net> wrote:
>> Ernst wrote:
>> > On Feb 8, 10:14 am, stan <smo...@exis.net> wrote:
>> >> Are you using factoring as a preprocessing step in a compression
>> >> scheme or are you simply posting off topic factoring threads in the
>> >> compressions newsgroup. From your words you claimed factoring was
>> >> attractive because is gave a longer string of bits (see below). You
>> >> never clearly stated what would happen next even when asked. So I ask
>> >> now. Does this factoring have anything to do with you compression
>> >> idea?
>> <snip>
>> > I am simply interacting for social gratification.
>> I see. I was having a hard time figuring out what your plan or goal
>> could be and I figured I was just missing it. So it's good to see you
>> don't actually have a plan or goal; I wasn't "missing" anything.
>> I do applaud your direct honesty in admitting your purpose is
>> trolling. It really is a time saver.
>> > If you don't like it go suck an egg.
>> I'll go out on a limb with a prediction. Your lack of understanding of
>> what usenet is and is not will lead to your continued frustration and
>> will further erode both your manners and behavior.
>> I further predict that your barking orders at people will never lead
>> to any measureable result.
>Fuck that.
> Pi has to repeat!~
> Think about this: Given probability and domain sampling of say 64 bit
>lengths but that is arbitrary,
> Just how many times a 64bit pattern can be expressed is bounded.
>Pi repeats!
>Just thinking that is.
Sure, Pi repeats any given digit an infinite number of times. And the
selection of digits is obviously dependent on the based used to
represent Pi. In decimal, the first thousand digits of Pi contain:
In base 2**64, you'd need (a lot) more digits to see the repeats, but
they'll still be there.
But just like in decimal, this isn't a repetition in the pattern,
which is what's important. For example, the rational fraction 1/7 is:
.142857142857142857142857142857...
with the same six digit pattern repeating forever. There is *no* such
repetition in Pi.
It's expected that Pi ultimately contains all shorter sequences, in
whatever base you're computing it in, although I don't think that's
been proven. For example, at about 36,356,643 digits in, you'll find
the pattern 99999999, and then at 66,780,106, and so on. Eight
consecutive zero can be found 172,330,851 an then at 184,688,989, and
so on.
The (very) old idea that you could compress data by simply pointing to
the string in Pi is flawed because the pointer must, on average, be at
least as long as the string, and worse, since Pi is not very regular,
the distance into Pi needed to find the average string is rather
higher than an optimally constructed string, so the pointer needs to
longer than the string to be compressed.
> I'll go out on a limb with a prediction. Your lack of understanding of
> what Usenet is and is not will lead to your continued frustration and
> will further erode both your manners and behaviour.
> I further predict that your barking orders at people will never lead
> to any measurable result.
Hey Shit head, when you pay my bills I worry what you think.
The topic is Transcendentals'
NOTE: I am sick of the people that dog me.
Here to learn and sharing what is best.
Back on Pi.. has to repeat based on sample length.. I have to be
correct.
>> I'll go out on a limb with a prediction. Your lack of understanding of
>> what Usenet is and is not will lead to your continued frustration and
>> will further erode both your manners and behaviour.
>> I further predict that your barking orders at people will never lead
>> to any measurable result.
> Hey Shit head, when you pay my bills I worry what you think.
> The topic is Transcendentals'
No, the topic is compression.
> NOTE: I am sick of the people that dog me.
Then, I wonder, why do you make the posts you doß
> Here to learn and sharing what is best.
> Back on Pi.. has to repeat based on sample length.. I have to be
> correct.
> Truth ?
Wrong. Pi is transcendental, which implies that it is not rational, which implies that it never repeats. The fact that Pi is irrational is
not hard to prove, it requires only elementary mathematics. Here is a pointer to a book (yes, the stuff on paper!) that provides it:
"Aigner, Ziegler: The BOOK of Proofs" ( <-- actually, a pretty good book, too)
> >> I'll go out on a limb with a prediction. Your lack of understanding of
> >> what Usenet is and is not will lead to your continued frustration and
> >> will further erode both your manners and behaviour.
> >> I further predict that your barking orders at people will never lead
> >> to any measurable result.
> > Hey Shit head, when you pay my bills I worry what you think.
> > The topic is Transcendentals'
> No, the topic is compression.
> > NOTE: I am sick of the people that dog me.
> Then, I wonder, why do you make the posts you doß
> > Here to learn and sharing what is best.
> > Back on Pi.. has to repeat based on sample length.. I have to be
> > correct.
> > Truth ?
> Wrong. Pi is transcendental, which implies that it is not rational,
> which implies that it never repeats. The fact that Pi is irrational is
> not hard to prove, it requires only elementary mathematics. Here is a
> pointer to a book (yes, the stuff on paper!) that provides it:
> "Aigner, Ziegler: The BOOK of Proofs" ( <-- actually, a pretty good
> book, too)
> Greetings,
> Thomas
Tom read again for a sample length any given word size has to repeat
value.
Thanks a whole bunch fellahs. As for me needing to work
transcendental numbers my interest is way more practical.
alrighty-then I see the file backup hit a snag and what should have
been done now will take all of today.
Still open to input on C code for computing Pi but I do have time to
look again today.
I think I will see if that tinyPi.c will actually work. It's written
in a funny way to be small but I wonder if C will allow that sort of
thing.
Thanks for the input. Very helpful.
There is telling how this idea using Trans' will turn out. No claims
here except that I will try.
> <Ernst_B...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> >On Feb 10, 6:31 pm, stan <smo...@exis.net> wrote:
> >> Ernst wrote:
> >> > On Feb 8, 10:14 am, stan <smo...@exis.net> wrote:
> >> >> Are you using factoring as a preprocessing step in a compression
> >> >> scheme or are you simply posting off topic factoring threads in the
> >> >> compressions newsgroup. From your words you claimed factoring was
> >> >> attractive because is gave a longer string of bits (see below). You
> >> >> never clearly stated what would happen next even when asked. So I ask
> >> >> now. Does this factoring have anything to do with you compression
> >> >> idea?
> >> <snip>
> >> > I am simply interacting for social gratification.
> >> I see. I was having a hard time figuring out what your plan or goal
> >> could be and I figured I was just missing it. So it's good to see you
> >> don't actually have a plan or goal; I wasn't "missing" anything.
> >> I do applaud your direct honesty in admitting your purpose is
> >> trolling. It really is a time saver.
> >> > If you don't like it go suck an egg.
> >> I'll go out on a limb with a prediction. Your lack of understanding of
> >> what usenet is and is not will lead to your continued frustration and
> >> will further erode both your manners and behavior.
> >> I further predict that your barking orders at people will never lead
> >> to any measureable result.
> >Fuck that.
> > Pi has to repeat!~
> > Think about this: Given probability and domain sampling of say 64 bit
> >lengths but that is arbitrary,
> > Just how many times a 64bit pattern can be expressed is bounded.
> >Pi repeats!
> >Just thinking that is.
> Sure, Pi repeats any given digit an infinite number of times. And the
> selection of digits is obviously dependent on the based used to
> represent Pi. In decimal, the first thousand digits of Pi contain:
> In base 2**64, you'd need (a lot) more digits to see the repeats, but
> they'll still be there.
> But just like in decimal, this isn't a repetition in the pattern,
> which is what's important. For example, the rational fraction 1/7 is:
> .142857142857142857142857142857...
> with the same six digit pattern repeating forever. There is *no* such
> repetition in Pi.
> It's expected that Pi ultimately contains all shorter sequences, in
> whatever base you're computing it in, although I don't think that's
> been proven. For example, at about 36,356,643 digits in, you'll find
> the pattern 99999999, and then at 66,780,106, and so on. Eight
> consecutive zero can be found 172,330,851 an then at 184,688,989, and
> so on.
> The (very) old idea that you could compress data by simply pointing to
> the string in Pi is flawed because the pointer must, on average, be at
> least as long as the string, and worse, since Pi is not very regular,
> the distance into Pi needed to find the average string is rather
> higher than an optimally constructed string, so the pointer needs to
> longer than the string to be compressed.
Well, what I have read over the years is echoed here.
I will use the transcendental number just as it is, in a practical
way.
No magic compression functions from Pi my friends.
I hope saying that will stop the howling dogs of comp.compression
from circling.
You and the guys are always so knowledgeable. It's worth taking on
all fighters here in this Gladiator school of data compression to have
a chat.
> Ernst wrote:
> > On Feb 8, 10:14 am, stan <smo...@exis.net> wrote:
> >> Are you using factoring as a preprocessing step in a compression
> >> scheme or are you simply posting off topic factoring threads in the
> >> compressions newsgroup. From your words you claimed factoring was
> >> attractive because is gave a longer string of bits (see below). You
> >> never clearly stated what would happen next even when asked. So I ask
> >> now. Does this factoring have anything to do with you compression
> >> idea?
> <snip>
> > I am simply interacting for social gratification.
> I see. I was having a hard time figuring out what your plan or goal
> could be and I figured I was just missing it. So it's good to see you
> don't actually have a plan or goal; I wasn't "missing" anything.
> I do applaud your direct honesty in admitting your purpose is
> trolling. It really is a time saver.
> > If you don't like it go suck an egg.
> I'll go out on a limb with a prediction. Your lack of understanding of
> what usenet is and is not will lead to your continued frustration and
> will further erode both your manners and behavior.
> I further predict that your barking orders at people will never lead
> to any measureable result.
I predict you will die and no one here will ask where you went.
Maybe someone will say you passed but who ever does will be attacked
as a Troll.
Where I get these bad manners is from here in comp.compression over
the last decade Stan.
This is a new strategy to get pas the folks that just have to fuck
with people in a smart way.
Like I said being educated doesn't exempt one from being human and
smart people like a fight like anyone else except smart people will
use their intelligence to hurt others and act like they did nothing
wrong thinking being smart is all they need.
Well to all those who feel it is their right to mess with people get
use to the idea that for a while i am trying a new approach here for
my 11th year of interacting here.
If we are all tired of it maybe we all will stop the crap? Right?
I have given years of following the "rules" here and you know what?
They are bent and twisted to fit the occasion. If someone is seen as
undesirable it's a party fro the rest of you guys. Well Guess what?
Those that don't take the time to phrase their issues in a general way
about topic and turn it personal get personal back.
So you choose to modify your behaviour dude because no one can change
the world but you can change yourself.
As for what happens to me or why i think as I do it is none of your
business get it?
So again I have a pile of bills here and you are welcome to them if
you want to show you care.
>> I'll go out on a limb with a prediction. Your lack of understanding of
>> what Usenet is and is not will lead to your continued frustration and
>> will further erode both your manners and behaviour.
>> I further predict that your barking orders at people will never lead
>> to any measurable result.
> Hey Shit head, when you pay my bills I worry what you think.
Not that the prediction was difficult, but I did expect it might take longer.
> The topic is Transcendentals'
Actually the topic is compression.
> Back on Pi.. has to repeat based on sample length.. I have to be
> correct.
Or what? Sadly, you're walking a very well worn path, PI has
fascinated for centuries but it won't help with compression.
> No magic compression functions from Pi my friends.
That actually goes without saying, it's pretty fundamental stuff.
> I hope saying that will stop the howling dogs of comp.compression
> from circling.
> You and the guys are always so knowledgeable. It's worth taking on
> all fighters here in this Gladiator school of data compression to have
> a chat.
Again, you really misunderstand usenet; this isn't a chat room.
1. The topic is compression.
2. Your ideas will be judged on their merits.
3. Your behavior will dictate how others respond.
