Re: Shannon's paper, and H as a lower bound on average code length.
- From: Thomas Richter <thor@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 25 Aug 2008 15:19:39 +0200
John schrieb:
Under certauincontraints he may have done, are you within the
constraints???
He shows for a given code that *that* code has H as a lower bound. But
what (from my understanding) he hasn't done is show that there is no
other code which can do better than H on average.
Your understanding is wrong.
So long,
Thomas
.
- Follow-Ups:
- References:
- Shannon's paper, and H as a lower bound on average code length.
- From: John
- Re: Shannon's paper, and H as a lower bound on average code length.
- From: John
- Re: Shannon's paper, and H as a lower bound on average code length.
- From: jacko
- Re: Shannon's paper, and H as a lower bound on average code length.
- From: John
- Shannon's paper, and H as a lower bound on average code length.
- Prev by Date: Re: A new thing, Peer review time
- Next by Date: Re: Zero motion vector Inter prediction in H264
- Previous by thread: Re: Shannon's paper, and H as a lower bound on average code length.
- Next by thread: Re: Shannon's paper, and H as a lower bound on average code length.
- Index(es):
