Re: Probability, compressible sequences: Backgrounds
- From: Thomas Richter <thor@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 07 Mar 2008 18:17:37 +0100
Industrial One schrieb:
On Mar 7, 1:05 am, Thomas Richter <t...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Hi folks,
A "specific sequence" cannot be random. And as such, as long as you know
A specific sequence can be random-appearing.
I don't know what this should be. It's a non-standard term, and, as you've seen
from all the discussions, it's ill-defined. What "appears" random is in the
eye of the beholder. I don't care, and neither does a compression algorithm.
It applies a model to a sequence, but whether this sequence compresses well
or not is not a question of whether it appears random or not, but whether
it fits to the statistical model of the compressor. The question is, is
this a typical sequence for the random model you imply. *That* is a useful
definition.
your sequence, you can compress it. Actually, to zero bit, as you know
Not really... if the sequence is random-appearing, without redundancy/
patterns, how do I compress it to zero bit?
Entropy and compression is about communication channels. If you know the sequence,
you don't need to communicate it from somewhere, you just write it down. Your
information channel requires exactly zero bits of capacity to do that, so it's
compressed down to zero.
Second misunderstanding: "RAD" or "random process" does not imply that
the probabilities of all symbols of the random process are equal. That
is, in fact, the boring case as it is easy to show that you cannot
compress this (i.e. for any compression device, the *average* output
length is equal to the input size, taking the number of experiments and
the size of the sequence to infinity). Furthermore, in no way the
probability of the next symbol need to be independent of the symbols
before (i.e. there is no need for the process to be memory-less). This
is again the "boring case". Compressors work because they model the
input source by a random process that *does* have memory. And this is a
good model for text, language, programs, images... "Good" as in "it does
work". We "do not have" a random device that generates symbols *exactly*
as in text/speech/images... etc. But "it's close enough for the purpose
of compression to assume it" - that is, "a model".
I don't see how these descriptions satisfy those common
characteristics of RAD. Unless the approximate 50:50 strings really
make up a majority of all possible combos of size N.
Then probably your definition of "random" is screwed. (-:
So long,
Thomas
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Probability, compressible sequences: Backgrounds
- From: Industrial One
- Re: Probability, compressible sequences: Backgrounds
- References:
- Probability, compressible sequences: Backgrounds
- From: Thomas Richter
- Re: Probability, compressible sequences: Backgrounds
- From: Industrial One
- Probability, compressible sequences: Backgrounds
- Prev by Date: Re: Probability, compressible sequences: Backgrounds
- Next by Date: Re: Probability, compressible sequences: Backgrounds
- Previous by thread: Re: Probability, compressible sequences: Backgrounds
- Next by thread: Re: Probability, compressible sequences: Backgrounds
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
|