To bad you don't understand the "limitation of math" Even if you
let every possible bit pattern count as a single number in seven
bytes. It does not even come close to then number of possible in
a hundred bytes. Either you insane or a con man. But your not the
first to claim such nonsense we get new ones here every few months.
The good news is that several fools with money they wish to piss
away still exist so you do have a chance to fleece them of there
money which otherwise they would spend foolishly anyway.
David A. Scott
--
My Crypto code
http://cryptography.org/cgi-bin/crypto.cgi/Misc/scott19u.zip
http://cryptography.org/cgi-bin/crypto.cgi/Misc/scott16u.zip
http://www.jim.com/jamesd/Kong/scott19u.zip old version
My Compression code http://bijective.dogma.net/
**TO EMAIL ME drop the roman "five" **
Disclaimer:I am in no way responsible for any of the statements
made in the above text. For all I know I might be drugged.
As a famous person once said "any cryptograhic
system is only as strong as its weakest link"
Say you want to compress some data to 2 bits.
But 2 bits can only be decoded to 2^2 = 4 unique results.
This means that you can only compress 4 different data to these two bits.
In this case you have 7 bytes = 56 bits.
So you have 2^56 unique data which can only be decoded to 2^56 unique
results.
You say you can decode them to 2^800 unique results.
See how this can't be done?
/Mikael
This is very interresting.
Is it possible to repeat this process?
Example:
14 groups of 100 bytes results in 14x7 bytes = 98 bytes
than repeat the process ones and get again 7 bytes.
Please, let me know if this is possible?
How much time does the last compression take?
Teo.
"Tim Bernard" <notmy...@server.com> wrote in message
news:GCRoa.119479$jVh....@news01.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com...
> One must understand the limitations of math
Most folks who use math regularly are familiar with its limits. However,
those limits are not sufficient to allow in magic at the drop of a hat.
Eric
"Teo van der Vlies" <teo_...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:s7Xoa.650640$sj7.26136066@Flipper...
Eric
App is best currently suited for instant messaging compression / encryption
"Eric Bodden" <e...@ukc.ac.uk> wrote in message
news:b820q9$ekj$1...@athena.ukc.ac.uk...
"Mikael" <mlqn...@telia.com> wrote in message
news:mlqnospam-81588...@news.fu-berlin.de...
Can it compress any 2 bytes into 1 byte?
Regards,
Peter Ballard
Adelaide, AUSTRALIA
pbal...@ozemail.com.au
http://www.ozemail.com.au/~pballard/
"Love your enemies, and pray for those who persecute you" - Jesus
(Matthew 5:44, NIV)
"Peter Ballard" <pbal...@ozemail.com.au> wrote in message
news:9d5509fa.03042...@posting.google.com...
ONE string of bits can only be encoded to ONE result.
This ONE result can only be decoded to ONE string of bits.
How else can you get back what you encoded?
This is why 7 bytes = 56 bits or 2^56 unique data can only be
decoded/transformed/changed to 2^56 unique results.
What's interesting with compression is not these obvious and
undisputable limitations, but the fact that we can use statistics to
encode the more popular data with fewer bits and the less popular with
more bits.
But it's ALWAYS one to one, or an injection if you like.
http://wombat.doc.ic.ac.uk/foldoc/foldoc.cgi?query=injection
/Mikael
Does it possible to encode a message WITHOUT consider the all
possible combination ? so what we do is to encode the characteristic of only
the current message (making the message itself its universe) without considering
surrounding possible value.
Raymond
>> Can it compress any 2 bytes into 1 byte?
> No it can not compress any two bytes into one byte.
Why not??
Could it compress any combination of 3 bytes into 2?
Could it compress any combination of 4 bytes into 3 (or less)
How about 5 into 4 (or less)? 6 into 5?
Could it compress 1000 bytes into 999? (Nope, I don't want
to do any better than 999 -- no reason to tax one's CPU!!)
I (and everyone else here) would be perfectly happy with an
algorithm that could guarantee 1000-->999 every time.
What is the minimum value of 'n' at which point the algorithm
(or a variant thereof) is able to do the following:
*** Completely offline, without reading or writing to a database,
*** self-modifying executeables, or other metadata repository
a) accept *any* sequence of 'n' bytes
b) produce, for every sequence accepted in (a), a secondary sequence
of fewer than 'n' bytes (ie: 'n-1' bytes is perfectly acceptable!)
c) recreate, from every sequence produced in (b) and no other meta
input (ie: filename used as part of input is illegal), the original
sequence of 'n' bytes from (a) -- AND NOTHING ELSE.
Ken
On Tue, 22 Apr 2003 22:35:29 +0000, Ken Savage wrote:
> What is the minimum value of 'n' at which point the algorithm
> (or a variant thereof) is able to do the following:
>
> *** Completely offline, without reading or writing to a database,
> *** self-modifying executeables, or other metadata repository
>
> a) accept *any* sequence of 'n' bytes
> b) produce, for every sequence accepted in (a), a secondary sequence
> of fewer than 'n' bytes (ie: 'n-1' bytes is perfectly acceptable!)
> c) recreate, from every sequence produced in (b) and no other meta
> input (ie: filename used as part of input is illegal), the original
> sequence of 'n' bytes from (a) -- AND NOTHING ELSE.
2^40960-1 bytes. For proof, send me a complete set of all files of that
size, and I'll send you back the entire set, each compressed by one byte.
:)
Gib
"Good News for Modern Man"