Would this be a good way to prove CRD (compress *random* data) to the public?
Goldy
focusing on here.
If I was going to release a new kind of compression, I know that I must
be able to prove it to the general masses. Here are my thoughts on
what an acceptable proof would be.
Step 1) Allow the public to download a "decompressor" program.
Step 2) Allow the public to upload a file to a server to be compressed.
Step 3) The server compresses the file and displays the output in plain
Base64 encoded string (on a web page or whatever) to be *COPIED AND
PASTED* in the decompressor program. All submitted files for testing
would be accessible to the public on this web page, so everyone can see
what everyone else has submitted to be tested, and check it themselves.
Step 4) PASTE the copied string into the decompressor program and run
it to get the output file.
Step 5) Compare the two files with DIFF or something similar to see if
they match.
Do you think this would work? If not, what would someone have to do to
prove to you that a new compression algorithm works?
Now, I am not talking about if it is possible or not, that is for
another (yet old) topic that has been long drawn out and argued. So
please hold back on the "your wasting your time blah blah blah"
comments.
Helpfull feedback is greatly appreciated.
Thank you for your time in advance.
~Kyle
Sachin Garg
Sounds cool enough to me. Just make sure that the 'decompressor' doesnt
attempts to make any network connections and should work if the same
'text' is pasted into it on a different machine.
But why use base 64 and copy-pasting. Why not just create a file on
server with compressed bytes and let the user download it? (it will
also save you server processor time if multiple people want to get
compressed versions of same file as you plan to publically post all
files)
This scheme might very well replace the older accepted scheme of using
two physically seperate machines and transferring data using
floppies/cds, its more convinient than that. Thatz assuming if someone
doesnt finds a flaw/trick in it.
But, when can we expect the URL? And how much time will compression
typically take for a few megs file? And what is the expected size of
decompressor executable? I hope none of these answers gives an
unreasonable figure...
btw, you are wasting your time... blah blah blah (just couldnt resist
the urge) :-)
best wishes,
Sachin Garg [India]
http://www.sachingarg.com
Goldy
Of course, I would not put any network functionality into the
decompressor, just INPUT/OUTPUT.
Which brings me to answer your question "But why use base 64 and
copy-pasting. Why not just create a file on
server with compressed bytes and let the user download it?".
Well, you answered that question yourself "This scheme might very well
replace the older accepted scheme of using
two physically seperate machines and transferring data using
floppies/cds, its more convinient than that. "
With Base64 encoding, it would be easy to read off the string, if
desired, to a friend who could type it in his decompressor.
I would encourage people to try it over phone's/IRC/IM/whatever.
> But, when can we expect the URL?
Two idea's come to mind.
1) open the site with NO PROOF, NO ALGORITHM and let others submit
there "proofs" for testing by the public.
2) design and build it, and hope that someday I get this damn math to
work the way I want it to. ;-)
> And how much time will compression typically take for a few megs file?
Answer: Since it obivously doesn't exist, I cannot answer that because
I just don't know.
However, this brings up a good point. What is the limit I should set
for file upload sizes???
My connection will be 14MB/14MB per second by the end of the month
(THANK YOU VERIZON!) so I was thinking about 128MB limit (about 10
seconds max) to upload a file the max size to me, at a full 14MB/sec.
This could be even slower due to comcast/DSL etc......never mind. I'm
not going into bandwidth right now.
>And what is the expected size of decompressor executable?
That depends on the programming language I use. My Native language is
obscure, simple, yet fat. It's called MetaCard/Revolution (recently
bought out). An average executable produced is 1.5MB. This too large
to release, but it works very well for testing purposes and is about as
fast as C or PERL. I could do it in C or C++, which would make it very
small. But I don't know the exact size. If I had to guess, less than
25KB in C or C++.
I can tell you this though. It will be mostly a bunch of IF THEN
conditions, move bits here and there, copy bits there and here, etc.
Shouldn't be too hard to follow when finished. I was think of doing a
flash animation of how the whole process works so it would be simple to
follow the bits as they shift around and get modified. Do you think
flash or something similar would be a good way to go to show how it
works visually?? Of course, the code will be open source and donations
gladly excepted. ;-)
And yes, I am probably wasting my life away by chasing this.....I
know....but I still have hope in complex patterns in nature.
Thanks again for the Input and questions.
~Kyle
Sachin Garg
Goldy wrote:
> Thank you for your comments.
>
> Of course, I would not put any network functionality into the
> decompressor, just INPUT/OUTPUT.
>
> Which brings me to answer your question "But why use base 64 and
> copy-pasting. Why not just create a file on
> server with compressed bytes and let the user download it?".
>
> Well, you answered that question yourself "This scheme might very well
> replace the older accepted scheme of using
> two physically seperate machines and transferring data using
> floppies/cds, its more convinient than that. "
>
> With Base64 encoding, it would be easy to read off the string, if
> desired, to a friend who could type it in his decompressor.
> I would encourage people to try it over phone's/IRC/IM/whatever.
You expect files to max size of a couple of MBs and a typical size will
still cross at least 1 MB, I am not sure how comfortable it will be to
"narrate" strings of this length over phone's/IRC/IM/whatever.
By letting the user download the compressed file manually will be
better as far as I can see. You dont have to put any network
functionality in your decompressor code for this, just read from file
and write to file.
However, if you are somehow trying to trick people about size during
the base64 coding (I have no idea how) then you have reasons for
sticking to using Base64. I would rather prefer a simple "I upload
original file and download the compressed file, decompress with the
compressor i previously downloaded and compare the output with original
file"
> > But, when can we expect the URL?
> Two idea's come to mind.
> 1) open the site with NO PROOF, NO ALGORITHM and let others submit
> there "proofs" for testing by the public.
> 2) design and build it, and hope that someday I get this damn math to
> work the way I want it to. ;-)
I am not sure what you are talking about here. Are you talking about
your algorithm or your test-website or both?
Are you planning the site as a place where 'others' who claim to have
RDCs can publically proove or are you planning to put up the site to
test your own RDC? (RDC = Random Data Compressor = A castle in the sky
= Another stupid dream = Series of failed attempts)
Best wishes again. (though I get this gut-feeling that you are correct
when you say that you are probably wasting your time by this)
> Thanks again for the Input and questions.
>
> ~Kyle
Sachin Garg [India]
http://www.sachingarg.com
Brian Raiter
> Answer: Since it obivously doesn't exist, I cannot answer that
> because I just don't know.
Okay, one more time:
<--- This is the cart.
And that is the horse. --->
There will be plenty of time to worry about web servers and
downloading demonstration files AFTER you have managed to write a
working compressor/decompressor pair.
b
Earl Colby Pottinger
> This scheme might very well replace the older accepted scheme of using
> two physically seperate machines and transferring data using
> floppies/cds, its more convinient than that. Thatz assuming if someone
> doesnt finds a flaw/trick in it.
>
> But, when can we expect the URL? And how much time will compression
> typically take for a few megs file? And what is the expected size of
> decompressor executable? I hope none of these answers gives an
> unreasonable figure...
The method is fine with me. Once I download the decompressor and compressed
file, I can transfer them to my laptop that has *Zero* networking and file
transfers are over the serial port with my own custom program written by me
and running under BeOS. In otherwords - no virus or other code can transfer
files to the laptop without my manual input. But I agree, the code to do RDC
can not exist, but does not mean I will not test anyone's interesting ideas.
Earl Colby Pottinger
--
I make public email sent to me! Hydrogen Peroxide Rockets, OpenBeos,
SerialTransfer 3.0, RAMDISK, BoatBuilding, DIY TabletPC. What happened to
the time? http://webhome.idirect.com/~earlcp
Earl Colby Pottinger
> Random or psuedo-random, I don't care...that's not the point I am
> focusing on here.
>
> If I was going to release a new kind of compression, I know that I must
> be able to prove it to the general masses. Here are my thoughts on
> what an acceptable proof would be.
>
> Step 1) Allow the public to download a "decompressor" program.
Yep, ok. But the decompressor still needs to work ok after I transfer it to
my laptop that does not have an internet connection and will not have a copy
of the original file anywhere on it.
> Step 2) Allow the public to upload a file to a server to be compressed.
Fine.
> Step 3) The server compresses the file and displays the output in plain
> Base64 encoded string (on a web page or whatever) to be *COPIED AND
> PASTED* in the decompressor program. All submitted files for testing
> would be accessible to the public on this web page, so everyone can see
> what everyone else has submitted to be tested, and check it themselves.
Why not a binary download?
> Step 4) PASTE the copied string into the decompressor program and run
> it to get the output file.
A binary download lets us skip that step.
> Step 5) Compare the two files with DIFF or something similar to see if
> they match.
Better yet, I will do the compare with my own program.
> Do you think this would work? If not, what would someone have to do to
> prove to you that a new compression algorithm works?
> Now, I am not talking about if it is possible or not, that is for
> another (yet old) topic that has been long drawn out and argued. So
> please hold back on the "your wasting your time blah blah blah"
> comments.
Random data compression? NO!
Method to test your compression code if you don't want people to see your
compression code? Yes.
What you planned above is basicly one of the methods we have suggested to
everyone who claims to have supercompression code. Interestly, not one
person making such a claim has dare set up such a site.
> Helpfull feedback is greatly appreciated.
> Thank you for your time in advance.
Earl Colby Pottinger
Sachin Garg
You might want to read this related news item I posted. The comments
posted there are interesting.
http://www.c10n.info/archives/49
Goldy
post.
I appreciate you posting this idea in front of others to be commented
on.
And for the last time, OF COURSE THE DECOMPRESSOR WOULD NOT HAVE ANY
NETWORKING CAPABILITIES, BACK DOORS, ETC.....
This would all be checked by peer review, of course, to make sure it
doesn't try to download something in the background etc etc etc.....
Goldy
"Goldy" <kyle.kwilli...@gmail.com> :
>> Random or psuedo-random, I don't care...that's not the point I am
>> focusing on here.
>> If I was going to release a new kind of compression, I know that I must
>> be able to prove it to the general masses. Here are my thoughts on
>> what an acceptable proof would be.
>> Step 1) Allow the public to download a "decompressor" program.
> Yep, ok. But the decompressor still needs to work ok after I transfer it to
my laptop that does not have an internet connection and will not have a
copy
of the original file anywhere on it.
Of course. That would be perfered.
>> Step 2) Allow the public to upload a file to a server to be compressed.
>Fine.
>> Step 3) The server compresses the file and displays the output in plain
>> Base64 encoded string (on a web page or whatever) to be *COPIED AND
>> PASTED* in the decompressor program. All submitted files for testing
>> would be accessible to the public on this web page, so everyone can see
>> what everyone else has submitted to be tested, and check it themselves.
>Why not a binary download?
Sure. A binary download would be fine.
I really don't care how it's transfered (FTP, HTTP, COPY & PASTE,
ETC...) so long as the compressed data gets to the decompressor without
corruption.
>> Step 4) PASTE the copied string into the decompressor program and run
>> it to get the output file.
> A binary download lets us skip that step.
Try pasting binary data to this forum and see how pretty it looks.
>> Step 5) Compare the two files with DIFF or something similar to see if
>> they match.
>Better yet, I will do the compare with my own program.
OK.
>> Do you think this would work? If not, what would someone have to do to
>> prove to you that a new compression algorithm works?
>> Now, I am not talking about if it is possible or not, that is for
>> another (yet old) topic that has been long drawn out and argued. So
>> please hold back on the "your wasting your time blah blah blah"
>> comments.
>Random data compression? NO!
>Method to test your compression code if you don't want people to see your
>compression code? Yes.
>What you planned above is basicly one of the methods we have suggested to
>everyone who claims to have supercompression code. Interestly, not one
>person making such a claim has dare set up such a site.
I think it would be a interesting site to start-up in general.
Also, I have NEVER claimed of being able to compress random data.
Earl Colby Pottinger
The point is that we don't need any outsiders (peer review) to tell us it is
ok. We will by default run the code on machines that just have no external
connections. You don't have to promise this, you have no choice!
Every con-artist who has ever come here has tried thier best to only run the
software on thier prepared machines, the hoops that hey will jump thru to
refuse us running thier code on our machines is frankly amazing.
But no matter what, no-one here will endorse you code until they can run it
on thier own machines themselves.
Please set up your site as soon as possible.
Earl Colby Pottinger
> 7. Earl Colby Pottinger Jul 11, 12:40 pm
> >What you planned above is basicly one of the methods we have suggested to
> >everyone who claims to have supercompression code. Interestly, not one
> >person making such a claim has dare set up such a site.
>
> I think it would be a interesting site to start-up in general.
> Also, I have NEVER claimed of being able to compress random data.
That is why I used the term SuperCompression. Aside from compressing random
data, we have also seen claims of lossless 100 to 1 compression and video
compression that is far superior to present compression schemes. All seem
doubtful, all failed to prove themselves.
jacko...@yahoo.com
information theory, and until it is accepted that the mathematics is
valid, then there will be no public or private demonstration. a,
potentially post homous, pardon from comp.compression and the faq will
be coming my way. so demonstating the point of it does matter how much
money you have. it may come down to deleting all i have said in some
convenient war zone, just so tof cat can claim he invented it. note:
tesla vs. edison.
Jim Leonard
> i am advancing
> information theory, and until it is accepted that the mathematics is
> valid, then there will be no public or private demonstration.
Your mathematics have already been proven invalid in previous threads.
Sportman
note:
> tesla vs. edison.
You don't need to go so far back in time, compression is only one of
the areas where scientists are to stubborn to be open-minded.
Let we take some examples:
Car on water, many times invented, many times demonstrated:
It's never on TV, it is:
http://www.befreetech.com/media/stan_meyers_bb.wmv
Free energy, many times invented, many times demonstrated:
I can't check the equipment myself, you can:
http://www.paynoincometax.com/audio/case.rm
I can't buy it, you can:
http://www.faraday.ru/products.html
It's never in the newspaper, it is:
http://www.theverylastpageoftheinternet.com/newclaims/cairns/cairns.htm
http://www.lutec.com.au
I can't build it myself, you can:
http://jlnlabs.imars.com/mahg/index.htm
Heating:
http://www.akoil.ru/en/
Antigravity, many times invented, many times demonstrated:
http://www.searleffect.com/free/SEGREV/SEGMAIN.html
The 436 pages PDF document at this last link is the said story about
Prof Searl. When he didn't had energy bills for many years the
government came in action. He showed antigravity in front of the BBC
camera's but finally lost almost everything and now he sees his old
friends as enemies.
What if you invent lossless compression better then accepted by
science?
Keep it for yourself or release it free or commercial.
When you release it free add a public license, otherwise somebody else
can patent your inventing and put it from the market.
Patenting the inventing can be not so good idea, because most countries
have some laws like this two electronic translated Dutch ones:
Article 40 (confidentiality of patent application/inventor)
1. if the office is of the opinion, which SECRET remaining the contents
of a patent application in the interest of the maintaining of the
kingdom is or allies can be, makes it this as soon as possible, yet at
the latest confessed within three months after the tender of the
application. Our minister of defense can with respect to the appraisal
of the question, or such importance present can be, indications give to
the office.
2. At the same time with the disclosure as meant in the first paragraph
the office sends duplicate of the decision and of to the application
the belonging description and drawings to our called minister.
3. In case the first paragraph is employed, the registration in the
patent register of the application is suspended.
Article 44 (be silent money)
1. In case our minister of defense is of the opinion, which progresses
the importance of the maintaining of the kingdom that the state uses
that, for which patent is requested in an application, on which Article
40 has been applied,.41 or 43, applies or does uses or apply, he can
proceed to this end after the decision concerned confessed have made.
In this decision, which the state must perform be able or does do
things, closely defined, become.
2. The state pays the applicant compensation for the use or the
application under the first paragraph.
3. The amount of this compensation is possibly determined by our called
minister and the applicant in mutual consultation. If within six months
after in the first paragraph disclosure meant no agreement has been
reached, Article 58, sixth paragraph, first volzin are, of
corresponding application.
I know one case related with compression/coding where a Dutch inventor
patented something interesting and the government came in action and
requested Philips to buy the inventing, what they did for 9 million
Dutch guilders (round 4,1 million euro). I doubt if Roel Pieper and Jan
Sloot knew this because this was before their time. Jan Sloot was
forced to patent his inventing because Philips wants only to see his
demonstration when it was patented.
One of the best Dutch journalist who is died recently, talked about the
"Red button people". Red button people are located somewhere within the
US government and have in every country a local red button. The
journalist could never find out who was the Dutch one. He discovered by
accident who gave the JFK murder instructions because he was in the
same airplane as Oswald mother and arranged a seat next to here. When
he started to research the subject two FBI guys delayed him with 2,5
hours in font of his house. Later he discovered the influence from the
"Red button people".
My hope is that Internet and web logs become more and more
uncontrollable what give the possibility for more and more people to
get all the information, because most Dutch and US media are censored
when it concern sensitive information.
When releasing your inventing commercial, I think at little scale with
not to much noise has the most change for success.
Earl Colby Pottinger
AH, I see it is con-artist time again.
Every con-artist pushing a super compression has always says something like
this. If you don't want you coding to under go real testing why did you
waste your time coming here.
Sorry, we have seen these claims close to a hundred times already (if you
don't count repeats from the same person) and to date not one working piece
of code or hardware has ever be produced. Please don't worry about us,
another con-artist will be here soon.