I know this won't work, I just want to know -why-.
- From: dalek_no2@xxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: 24 Dec 2005 20:32:39 -0800
Another crackpot thought pattern from me. I occasionally poke my head
into this group and rattle off some inane, but unusual thought
regarding compression methods. I understand the basic concepts of
compression, and I get the whole "you can't get something for nothing"
line of reasoning, but I still like thinking towards the more exotic
forms of data compression.
Anyway, recently, I found myself reasoning thusly:
It is possible, nay trivial, to create redundancy data for any file
which will detect and correct any error up to the size of the
redundancy data. Simple, yes?
Why, therefore, would it be impossible to take a file, create just over
50% redundancy for it, delete the original file, create a -completely
random- file of exactly the same size, and apply the recovery data to
the random file? Statistically, only about half of the bits should be
wrong. Also, you're not compressing N-bytes into fewer than N-bytes,
since the random file is N-bytes, and the recovery data is 1/2 * N
bytes.
I suspect that my misunderstanding here lies in my understanding of
error detection and recovery, but I just wanted to make sure.
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: I know this won't work, I just want to know -why-.
- From: Sachin Garg
- Re: I know this won't work, I just want to know -why-.
- From: Jim Leonard
- Re: I know this won't work, I just want to know -why-.
- From: Claudio Grondi
- Re: I know this won't work, I just want to know -why-.
- From: Nicholas Sherlock
- Re: I know this won't work, I just want to know -why-.
- Prev by Date: Re: VBR Format
- Next by Date: Re: I know this won't work, I just want to know -why-.
- Previous by thread: PAQ7 released
- Next by thread: Re: I know this won't work, I just want to know -why-.
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|