I could give a more pure logical proof if you wanted, but I will not do that unless you really have use for it. Btw, someone else might proved this already.
I understand the basic criticism here. Entropy is something that you cant just make smaller, according to theory. Yeah, you could never compress stuff down to like a single letterAnother thing. Isnt it weird how if you flip a coin 100 times and it for example does 50 heads in a row then 50 tails in a row that we could totally represent this in way less than 100| bits? Does entropy have a hard objective definition here, or is it subjective?
Here is another showerthought. Different compression idea.
Every possible sequence of every possible| number lives on irrational and transcendental numbers such as pi, right? (Nevermind the unfeasiblity, we just care about whether or not its logically possible). Could we not identify| a string of data represented in numbers as an index position of pi? For example, '14159265' could be p[1:8]. Is that not potential for insane bit reduction, theoretically? (If the| numbers get too big, no biggie, numbers can also be expressed as equations or in scientific notation).
I think all we gotta do to prove it is to do it once, and show results we| otherwise wouldn't be able to yield, correct?
I don't believe in a free lunch, but my mind is open.
| obviously. But what if there was a theoretical floor, based on the laws of mathematics? Im not arguing there can be, but what if?
I think it all comes down to a single premise. If
| taking the square root of a Very Large number (1000 characters) can massively decrease the number of characters, then isnt that by itself a compression? All you gotta do is not add
My advice for sqrt, DO THE MATH. It is really not hard, and it will help you understand the issues involved. DO NOT try to add AES or something into the mix, do ONE thing first.
| more characters with notation than what you reduce with math. Is there some reason you could never be on the positive end here?
My idea with using AES255 encryption is simply that
| doing so gives you a totally different set of characters with different entropy, i think. So you could compress it differently.
Logically speaking, i dont think a singularity is
| realistic, no, but what if the shrinking process involved with square-rooting results in more compressioj than not? If the compression even had a mere 51% chance of being superior,
| then couldnt we just do it over and over again to get a better compression?
I think it all hinges on the premise that math allows us to bidirectionally and deterministically shorten
| a character count. Is this assumption itself incorrect?
If it was 100 heads, and it always was, sure, you could save that in zero bits. If it was often 100 heads, it could be 1 bit for this special case, and a cost of one bit for all othercases. Like, the first bit is always 0 if it's not 100 heads (even this is a bit oversimplified)So you would need 1 bit if 100 heads, 101 bits if not.
It is definitely objective in my example. Think of it this way, instead of 100 coinflips, do 2, so in binary: 00,01,10,11. And try to map the info into 1 bit: 0 or 1.You can map 0 to 00 and 1 to 01, but then what do you map to 10 and 11? If you know that 10 and 11 never occurs, sure, you have compressed the data, but you do not.This is proof that you cannot reduce entropy, only change the dataformat (and often add some entropy). Even a compression algorithm will INCREASE entropy of a totally random dataset.About compression: For a given special dataset it may indeed decrease size, but if you use it over and over for different random datasets, you will spend more space than uncompressed.That is, it is "proof" (not very rigorous and mathematically clear) that you cannot reduce entropy by a whole (information-)bit. It could easily be generalized to be more fine grained.
So you use some Pi magic to compress, and when it doesn't work you use some more magic. I am sorry, it will not help you, "the devil is in the details" here
People have bought me free lunch lots of times lol.
Ah, but if they bought the lunch, was it REALLY free? Huh? The plot thickens.
