Comments on: Quantized Indexing: Beyond Arithmetic Coding http://www.c10n.info/archives/251 All about the most recent compression techniques, algorithms, patents, products, tools and events. Tue, 07 Feb 2012 21:24:55 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6 By: Beau Penrod http://www.c10n.info/archives/251#comment-356042 Beau Penrod Wed, 28 Jul 2010 12:15:46 +0000 http://www.c10n.info/?p=251#comment-356042 Interesting blog dude Thanks Interesting blog dude Thanks

]]> By: Earl Colby Pottinger http://www.c10n.info/archives/251#comment-320478 Earl Colby Pottinger Thu, 04 Feb 2010 22:14:32 +0000 http://www.c10n.info/?p=251#comment-320478 Sorry, just read your last paragraph. Someone else posted here recently. So this was the first time I noticed this discussion. I started to read the article/Usenet thread and did not notice at first that all the posts were five(5) years ago Sorry, just read your last paragraph. Someone else posted here recently. So this was the first time I noticed this discussion. I started to read the article/Usenet thread and did not notice at first that all the posts were five(5) years ago

]]> By: Earl Colby Pottinger http://www.c10n.info/archives/251#comment-320477 Earl Colby Pottinger Thu, 04 Feb 2010 22:11:30 +0000 http://www.c10n.info/?p=251#comment-320477 I read the thread pointed at the start of the article. I was not impressed with the OP who spent all his time quoting research papers, but seem unaware on any modern AC that was in real world use. Worse were his claims that he could always compress better AC or Huffman, even with my limited knowledge of compression I am aware that if model is a perfect match to the data, that you can't compress better unless you increase the number of orders. But the very worse is I followed the link on his website. He posted in 2005 and it is now 2010 and he still does not have a demo program to prove his ideas. In the long run - working code is always king. I read the thread pointed at the start of the article.

I was not impressed with the OP who spent all his time quoting research papers, but seem unaware on any modern AC that was in real world use.

Worse were his claims that he could always compress better AC or Huffman, even with my limited knowledge of compression I am aware that if model is a perfect match to the data, that you can’t compress better unless you increase the number of orders.

But the very worse is I followed the link on his website. He posted in 2005 and it is now 2010 and he still does not have a demo program to prove his ideas.

In the long run - working code is always king.

]]> By: David Scott http://www.c10n.info/archives/251#comment-320441 David Scott Thu, 04 Feb 2010 16:30:35 +0000 http://www.c10n.info/?p=251#comment-320441 I thought I posted code for the so called challenge a long time ago. I felt that in this case the bijective arithmetic compressor compressed better (closer to entropy) then the QI or what ever it was called. The simple contest if I remember right was just for compressing files generated by an I. I. D. source of 3 symbols each having probability of 1/3 I don't think he actually ever coded anything. But I found my last post on it. I compressed better than what I think he claimed was optimal. Here is part of my last post of jan 26 2006 start ... QUOTE ON Hence the total decodable output for N=10^6 symbols, A=3 is: DECODABLE OUTPUT = 1584993 bits = 198124.125 bytes That size is fixed, the same for all inputs. You can check the whole code-decode-compare in the function radix_iter() in Tests.c file. QUOTE OFF Maybe my code that is in http://bijective.dogma.net/nitelite.zip is way off base and doesn't seem to compress to 1584992 bits or 198124 bytes. That is if I put it to a buffer and included in a poor way the length field. Actully the compressed file length was 198121 bytes. Maybe this is all a dream of mine. If so I GIVE UP YOU WIN. I HAVE WASTED ENOUGH TIME TRYING TO ARGUE WITH YOU. DO YOU UNDERSTAND I GIVE YOU WIN I GOT TIRED BEFORE YOU DO THEREFOR YOU WIN. I WILL NOT POST IN THIS THREAD ANYMORE SO GO AHEAD BE THE LAST ONE TO POST. David A. Scott ...end post I gave up arguing with the guy it got no where but my compressor for this special example compressed to a few bytes smaller then what he claimed his exact compress would. So why did you even bring up this again its several years ago? Did he ever write a program for the challange? Did he correct his method so that it would get a better answer than the simple bijective arthimtec or what? I thought I posted code for the so called challenge a long time ago. I felt that in this case the bijective arithmetic compressor compressed better (closer to entropy) then the QI or what ever it was called. The simple contest if I remember right was just for compressing files generated by an I. I. D. source of 3 symbols each having probability of 1/3 I don’t think
he actually ever coded anything. But I found my last post on it. I compressed better than what I think he claimed was optimal.
Here is part of my last post of jan 26 2006

start …

QUOTE ON

Hence the total decodable output for N=10^6 symbols, A=3 is:

DECODABLE OUTPUT = 1584993 bits = 198124.125 bytes

That size is fixed, the same for all inputs. You can check the whole
code-decode-compare in the function radix_iter() in Tests.c file.

QUOTE OFF

Maybe my code that is in

http://bijective.dogma.net/nitelite.zip

is way off base and doesn’t seem to compress to
1584992 bits or 198124 bytes. That is if I put it
to a buffer and included in a poor way the length
field. Actully the compressed file length was
198121 bytes. Maybe this is all a dream of mine.
If so I GIVE UP YOU WIN. I HAVE WASTED ENOUGH
TIME TRYING TO ARGUE WITH YOU. DO YOU UNDERSTAND
I GIVE YOU WIN I GOT TIRED BEFORE YOU DO THEREFOR
YOU WIN. I WILL NOT POST IN THIS THREAD ANYMORE
SO GO AHEAD BE THE LAST ONE TO POST.

David A. Scott

…end post

I gave up arguing with the guy it got no where
but my compressor for this special example compressed to a few bytes smaller then what he claimed his exact compress would. So why did you even bring up this again its several years ago? Did he ever write a program for the challange? Did he correct his method so that it would get a better answer than the simple bijective arthimtec or what?

]]> By: Earl Colby Pottinger http://www.c10n.info/archives/251#comment-320412 Earl Colby Pottinger Thu, 04 Feb 2010 12:47:12 +0000 http://www.c10n.info/?p=251#comment-320412 If I am reading this right, QI does not offer better compression than AC, just faster compression with fewer resources needed. That sounds like a win-win situation to me, but if it is a restricted patent it becomes a no-go option. I do very little compression coding, but what I do do is always release for the public to use whatever way they wish. Most patents have licences that prevent you from doing such. If I am reading this right, QI does not offer better compression than AC, just faster compression with fewer resources needed.

That sounds like a win-win situation to me, but if it is a restricted patent it becomes a no-go option.

I do very little compression coding, but what I do do is always release for the public to use whatever way they wish. Most patents have licences that prevent you from doing such.

]]> By: Internet Banking http://www.c10n.info/archives/251#comment-320369 Internet Banking Thu, 04 Feb 2010 07:08:21 +0000 http://www.c10n.info/?p=251#comment-320369 Glad to see that this site works well on my Blackberry Bold, everything I want to do is functional. Thanks for keeping it up to date with the latest. Glad to see that this site works well on my Blackberry Bold, everything I want to do is functional. Thanks for keeping it up to date with the latest.

]]> By: Quantized Indexing Update http://www.c10n.info/archives/251#comment-736 Quantized Indexing Update Tue, 10 Jan 2006 20:50:18 +0000 http://www.c10n.info/?p=251#comment-736 David A. Scott (known for his work on Bijective compressors) has proposed a simple challenge for QI, pitting it against Arithmetic Coding. In the nut shell, its nothing but... David A. Scott (known for his work on Bijective compressors) has proposed a simple challenge for QI, pitting it against Arithmetic Coding. In the nut shell, its nothing but…

]]> By: c10n.info http://www.c10n.info/archives/251#comment-689 c10n.info Wed, 28 Dec 2005 18:09:15 +0000 http://www.c10n.info/?p=251#comment-689 December 28th, 2005 Posted by Sachin Garg <a href="http://www.c10n.info/archives/298">Quantized Indexing Source Code Available</a> The Data Compression News Blog - c10n.info December 28th, 2005
Posted by Sachin Garg

Quantized Indexing Source Code Available
The Data Compression News Blog - c10n.info

]]>