Re: New Compression Method
- From: "David A. Scott" <daVvid_a_scott@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 13 Apr 2006 12:53:35 +0000 (UTC)
"Einstein" <michaelhh@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in
news:1144903527.358271.43800@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx:
Well I am not as much software side as I wished I were. It seems to me
that first we do 3 bits into a new arrangement, then we do a swap on 16
bits, then another transposition on the same, then a final compile....
all this means we use 4 functions per bit. It also says to me that due
to the need to do searches and such, we are probably using 16 bits per
bit per stage on average. So we need 64 bits per bit in each stage? I
might be wrong, and I would have no problems admitting it.
But if so, then to do a megabyte of data into compression would require
64 megabytes?
It's good to see that if you might be wrong you would have no
problem admitting it. We are waiting!!
David A. Scott
--
My Crypto code
http://bijective.dogma.net/crypto/scott19u.zip
http://www.jim.com/jamesd/Kong/scott19u.zip old version
My Compression code http://bijective.dogma.net/
**TO EMAIL ME drop the roman "five" **
Disclaimer:I am in no way responsible for any of the statements
made in the above text. For all I know I might be drugged.
As a famous person once said "any cryptograhic
system is only as strong as its weakest link"
.
- References:
- New Compression Method
- From: Einstein
- Re: New Compression Method
- From: Earl Colby Pottinger
- Re: New Compression Method
- From: Einstein
- Re: New Compression Method
- From: guenther vonKnakspott
- Re: New Compression Method
- From: Einstein
- Re: New Compression Method
- From: Tjackson.1982@xxxxxxxxx
- Re: New Compression Method
- From: Einstein
- New Compression Method
- Prev by Date: Re: New Compression Method
- Next by Date: Re: New Compression Method
- Previous by thread: Re: New Compression Method
- Next by thread: Re: New Compression Method
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
|