Re: can we have another impasse about recursive and absorbative compression again?

im·passe
n.
1. A road or passage having no exit; a cul-de-sac.
2. A situation that is so difficult that no progress can be made; a
deadlock or a stalemate: reached an impasse in the negotiations.

While I can't guarantee that and don't feel that it will be beneficial,
I do have another idea.

I'm up for an intelligent discussion, if that's an option. And maybe
some of you, or most of you, might think that the phrases "recursive
compression" and "intelligent discussion" don't belong in the same
sentence...but we can try, can't we? I do apologize if there actually
has been one of these before, but I'm not positive I want to read
through all (at the time of this posting) 27,949 topics-even
descriptions-just to find it. Not to mention I've been doing a bit of
thinking on this issue. Now don't get me wrong-I don't claim to have a
program, and I don't believe that I can compress anything you choose to
send me to compress. But I've still given the subject a bit of
thought, and it's my personal opinion that there are some angles of
this that have yet to be explored-at the very least, the arguments used
against it; I'm not so sure about the arguments used for it.

Slightly offtopic but relatively relevant-some of you, or many of you,
or none of you, as the case may be, may take one look at my handle here
and chunk me in with the rest of the crackpots you've had to deal with
over the years. Now maybe I've just been living an isolated life, but
I was honestly unaware of the notions that are commonly associated with
a non-real name handle. On the other hand, I'm not currently
comfortable using my real name as a handle because there are a few
people here who I've interacted with before on some level or another,
and it is my belief that they got the wrong impression of me at that
time. I've learned quite a bit since then, but my ideas/beliefs/etc
have not changed overall, and if I just came out and said what I'd said
previously, I'd be laughed at, and/or flamed, and I'm aware of that.

Now on to the intelligent discussion part:
I'm just curious-I know a lot of people have claimed that their
algorithm/program/etc is not affected by the counting
argument/principle, as that is the first thing that is presented to
contradict their claims when they say they can compress "all files".
But I'm curious what things other than the counting principle say that
it isn't possible-and it'd be appreciated if the examples weren't based
on the counting principle either, although if you feel you must mention
one that is, it'd be nice if you could specify that. I just feel
anything based on the counting principle may as well BE the counting
principle, so it's not exactly an additional reason.

Now I'm relatively new to compression as a whole, but I do have some
ideas about some things, that may not be quite as radical as some of
the things that have been proposed-for instance, I'm not foolish enough
to think that I can code a file multi-dimensionally with all that other
crap that ZeoSync was claiming. I also realize that's an old story,
but I've been doing some research lately and it turned up. I'm of the
opinion that I have some useful ideas, but given how many people have
been here before me, it wouldn't surprise me in the least if someone
had already suggested everything I've come up with. But for now, I'd
like to discuss the counting principle, among other things.

Thanks for reading all of that. :) My apologies for my lengthy
post-but I tend to write a lot.

.