Re: Gzip better than Bz2 ? Normal?
- From: Mike McCarty <mike.mccarty@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 02 Jan 2006 16:10:07 -0600
Deron Meranda wrote:
It is a theorem that, for any [lossless] compression algorithm which makes the compressed version of some file smaller than the uncompressed version, there is a file for which the compressed version is *larger* than the uncompressed version.
It's also true that the amount of expansion in those cases never has to be more than one additional bit. -- Deron Meranda
Umm, I suppose that you mean that there is *another* compression algorithm which produces, for any file which is actually shrunk, an output which is the same except for being one bit longer, and which, for all the files which the original actually grows, produces an output which is only one bit longer than the uncompressed file.
There are lossless compression algorithms for which what you said is not true.
Mike
--
p="p=%c%s%c;main(){printf(p,34,p,34);}";main(){printf(p,34,p,34);}
This message made from 100% recycled bits.
You have found the bank of Larn.
I can explain it for you, but I can't understand it for you.
I speak only for myself, and I am unanimous in that!-- fedora-list mailing list fedora-list@xxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Gzip better than Bz2 ? Normal?
- From: Donald Arseneau
- Re: Gzip better than Bz2 ? Normal?
- References:
- Gzip better than Bz2 ? Normal?
- From: Franck Y
- Re: Gzip better than Bz2 ? Normal?
- From: Mike McCarty
- Re: Gzip better than Bz2 ? Normal?
- From: Deron Meranda
- Gzip better than Bz2 ? Normal?
- Prev by Date: Re: Best/energy efficient CPU/Chipset/Motherboard for 64bit Fedora?
- Next by Date: Re: mail client using squid
- Previous by thread: Re: Gzip better than Bz2 ? Normal?
- Next by thread: Re: Gzip better than Bz2 ? Normal?
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
