jg@medg.lcs.mit.edu (Jules Gilbert) wrote in message
news:<496bb05e.0309091351.2240ffa5@posting.google.com>...

I assume that most of the reader's of this newsgroup are familiar with
the usual compression model, a SEND side, a RCVE side, and a channel.

That's not the model my program employs.

My program is organized in such a way that the SEND side operator and
the RCVE side operator must agree on a file which already exists on
both side of the channel. This file is read by both programs, the
SEND side as well as the RCVE side. Obviously, this file acts as a
synchronized random source for each process. I call this the MAPKEY
file.

This file should be at least as large as the file to compressed. If
this is not the case, the file is rewound and re-read when EOF is
reached.

I must ask. Even if you could compress any file using this method
(which actually sounds believeable after you hear what I'm about to
ask), doesn't it occur to you that the MAPKEY file must be saved? I
assume the MAPKEY file is required for decompression. Thus your real
compression is the size of your compressed file plus the size of the
MAPKEY file. Just a thought.

"David A. Scott" <daVvid_a_scott@email.com> wrote in message
news:Xns93F33D2F67A55H110W296LC45WIN3030R@130.133.1.4...
SuperFly <fake@email.com> wrote in
news:38e0mv48r3u9abu6a7nvihm3574n5p52t4@4ax.com:


But in the end it's almost like religion. The really want to believe
it's possible and don't accept counter arguments.

No its not like religion it is religion,


This coming from the high priest of bijective compression.

On Thu, 11 Sep 2003 09:33:52 -0500, "Dale King" <KingD@tmicha.net
wrote:

"David A. Scott" <daVvid_a_scott@email.com> wrote in message
news:Xns93F33D2F67A55H110W296LC45WIN3030R@130.133.1.4...
SuperFly <fake@email.com> wrote in
news:38e0mv48r3u9abu6a7nvihm3574n5p52t4@4ax.com:


But in the end it's almost like religion. The really want to believe
it's possible and don't accept counter arguments.

No its not like religion it is religion,

This coming from the high priest of bijective compression.

Yeah. Let's start another one of those pointless bijective threads
next to the recursive compression can't be done thread. That will
really push up the intellectual level of this thread

BTW: I'm not referring to bijection itself but to the 'flamewars'
between you and David. Can't you come to some kind of consensus and
move on ..

On Thu, 11 Sep 2003 09:33:52 -0500, "Dale King" <KingD@tmicha.net
wrote:

"David A. Scott" <daVvid_a_scott@email.com> wrote in message
news:Xns93F33D2F67A55H110W296LC45WIN3030R@130.133.1.4...
SuperFly <fake@email.com> wrote in
news:38e0mv48r3u9abu6a7nvihm3574n5p52t4@4ax.com:


But in the end it's almost like religion. The really want to believe
it's possible and don't accept counter arguments.

No its not like religion it is religion,


This coming from the high priest of bijective compression.

Yeah. Let's start another one of those pointless bijective threads
next to the recursive compression can't be done thread. That will
really push up the intellectual level of this thread :)

BTW: I'm not referring to bijection itself but to the 'flamewars'
between you and David. Can't you come to some kind of consensus and
move on ..

The pointer is to Matts many have looked at mine. I write not nearly
as well as he. I wish he would continue to post here and maybe explain
more but I think the likes of King have sucessfully discouraged him into
thinking its a waste of time. I would also like to see him relase a better
version of BICOM. I have been tempted to realease my on changes to it but
then America has far fewer freedoms than what is allowed canadians so
I continue to work more on compression that could be used as a first pass
for encryption.

No its not like religion it is religion,


This coming from the high priest of bijective compression.


Yeah. Let's start another one of those pointless bijective threads
next to the recursive compression can't be done thread. That will
really push up the intellectual level of this thread :)

BTW: I'm not referring to bijection itself but to the 'flamewars'
between you and David. Can't you come to some kind of consensus and
move on ..

Hey, don't spoil the great entertainment!

BTW: I'm not referring to bijection itself but to the 'flamewars'
between you and David. Can't you come to some kind of consensus and
move on ..

Hey, don't spoil the great entertainment!

Seriously, I hoped they would be able to achieve something constructive
together in their private emails recently. Not so, unfortunately. :-(

Since they are so interested in *arguing* about it, should they also be
interested in *creating* something together, that's the rational and
adult thing to do in their case.

Since they are so interested in *arguing* about it, should they also be
interested in *creating* something together, that's the rational and
adult thing to do in their case.

"Winds of truth should blow away heresies, and clear the airs of holy
church, which is now full troubled." -- John Wyclif (1380)
--
Mikael Lundqvist
http://www.geocities.com/mikaellq/
Occam's Razor:
"Keep things simple!"

Hello folks:

Most of the regulars around comp.cpx have heard of me -- I'm the guy
who claims to do what most of the rest of the regulars believe to be
impossible.

I build working, practical compressors which routinely further
compress the output produced by processing an uncompressed file, and
thus, perform iterative compression.

Mikael its not likely King and I would ever do that. He doesn't think
FILE COMPRESSORS are worthly of being called compressors so its hard to
belive that could happen.

However take your BWT compressor as an example
I could make it compress better by removing some of the non bijective
parts. Are you game. It would be a slower but it would compress
better.

SuperFly <fake@email.com> wrote in
news:2o81mv8hhouvk6mplg4fg03ph2q2p802qa@4ax.com:

On Thu, 11 Sep 2003 09:33:52 -0500, "Dale King" <KingD@tmicha.net
wrote:

"David A. Scott" <daVvid_a_scott@email.com> wrote in message
news:Xns93F33D2F67A55H110W296LC45WIN3030R@130.133.1.4...
SuperFly <fake@email.com> wrote in
news:38e0mv48r3u9abu6a7nvihm3574n5p52t4@4ax.com:


But in the end it's almost like religion. The really want to believe
it's possible and don't accept counter arguments.

No its not like religion it is religion,


This coming from the high priest of bijective compression.

Yeah. Let's start another one of those pointless bijective threads
next to the recursive compression can't be done thread. That will
really push up the intellectual level of this thread :)

BTW: I'm not referring to bijection itself but to the 'flamewars'
between you and David. Can't you come to some kind of consensus and
move on ..


The problem is King knows a little bit about stream compression

and
a little bit about what Shannon said.

Its sad he doesn't have the
intelligence to apply it out side of his narrow views.

He falsely
contines to say I call Shannon wrong when he does not know how to
apply it.

My code is open to all to view. Yet King will continue
to belittle it.

He has a weak grasp as to what bijective arithmetic
compression is.

THere are several versions Matts mine and Tims. I
think Matt is the best spokesman for bijective compression but he is
smarter than me since he knows its a foolish waste of time to get
into on unending argument with the likes of King who will mot even
take an honest like at the code.

Matt writes code like what most
call a real program. Mine is less organized. If King really wants
respect from one like me

then find a file that when uncompressed
by Matts code will not comprees back to its self. Or find a file
that when compressed will not decompress back to its self. He can't
becuase he will not even look.

But he will waste thousands of messages
saying one either can't do it.

Or one is cheating or one should never
view compression as a process done to files.

He like a very religious
person can not see the other side of an issue. To one like him
there is only one side his.

And people like Matt see both sides
and quickly learn not to waste time trying to educate such a narrow
minded person.

Here again is Matts code for a bijective arithmetic file compressor
http://www3.sympatico.ca/mt0000/biacode/biacode.html
It does not waste bits in data file for length it does not use an EOF
symbol in probability table. It does not waste 2 bits for a quadrant
determinenation like other arithmetic file compressor

since there are
a waste of space and not needed yet few have the intelligence to grasp
these simple facts.