🚀 go-pugleaf

In a previous article Perry Metzger writes:
+  Joe Isuzu writes:
+>Unless you take symbolic representation into account.  Say you
+>numbered the (2^14)-1 words, and used that to replace just the
+>absolute matches (forgetting about endings etc), you would already be
+>elimintating more than you claim, before even implementing redundancy
+>techniques.  If you read a little more on the subject, you would
+>realize there is more than one way to skin a cat.

+Sorry, you still lose. If you do that, you are not compressing an
+ARBITRARY text that much. For instance, if I have 256 books in my
+library, and each one of them contains say a million words (I know
+that is big) you can then compress any book in the library down to 8
+bits, provided that you know that the text you are transmitting is in
+the library. But then, you see, you are not compressing an ARBITRARY
+text, only a text you can find in that limited library. If I pick
+completely random text I can't do that.

  The subject was English text.  Last time I checked, English was not
completely arbitrary.  Illogical, perhaps, but not *completely* arbitrary.
The above described technique would work fairly well on most text,
although I'm not sure whether it would allow you to break the 75% barrier
you previously referred to.  Maybe.


-- 
Robert Bickford         {hplabs, ucbvax, lll-lcc, ptsfa}!well!rab
terrorist cryptography DES drugs cipher secret decode NSA CIA NRO IRS
coke crack pot LSD russian missile atom nuclear assassinate libyan RSA