Whatever your 'magical' method or algorithm would be, it is *mathematicallly impossible* to have an algorithm that works on arbitrary files of say N bits and compresses each of them to N-1 or less bits. The mathematical proof is obtained by counting the number of files you consider as possible input (2^N) and the number possible output files (1+2+...+2^(N-1)=2^N-1). There are fewer target files than source files, so whatever algorithm you come up with, there will be two files that are 'compressed' to the same file, so you wouldn't be able to properly decompress.
Of course you could put the original file into the decompression binary and simply compress to a single 1 bit, or to the empty file for that matter, but in that case you need a different decompressor for each compressed file, and hence you should add the size of the decompressor to the compressed size.
Btw, Signail11 already did a very good job at explaining all of this, and he certainly understands 'the most basic tenets of data compression'. And nobody said you're an imbecile. It is very natural to think that all files must be compressible somehow, since in your and everybody's experience all files are compressible by at least a factor of 2. But those are text files and binaries and contain repetitive patterns. In general it is not possible to mangle data to create repetition, as mathematics shows.
I don't think quake 3 will stop playing on Linux 2.4, but even if it did, there's nobody stopping you from keeping a 2.2 kernel and glibc-2.1 around. To use the 2.2 kernel you'd have to reboot, to use the lib you don't even had to do that.
Backwards compatibility is much better on Linux. No magical hacks needed like what MS has to do to win95/98.
Roblimo, when you had just started as/. editor, you messed up big time by writing up something that was terribly false, and then rewriting your story later _without_ including an 'Update:' part. And here you are doing it again. You can't just post something, let people react to that, and then change it behind their backs!!
What other squatting? That link is referring to Colgate vs Ajax.org which was clearly *NOT* a case of squatting, since the guy who registered Ajax.org did that for reasons that had nothing to do with Colgate. (And neither did it have to do with Ajax Amsterdam, for that matter.)
If growth continues at its current rate, and if we added 1 billion people in the last 12 years (so we went from 5 to 6 billion) then in the coming 12 years we'll grow to 6 * (6/5) = 7.2 billion, and in 2035 we'll be with 10.2 billion.
However, 35 years is a long time. In the last 35 years the growth rate in the western world declined considerably. Same might happen in the coming 35 years for other parts of the world.
I built a cross compiling gcc that runs on linux and compiles for windows/mingw32. Works well for what I need: producing a windows binary once in a while. For testing I use wine. My primary target is of course linux.
Maybe not for calculus, but this facility is very useful when you study discrete structures. I've used it many times, found several connections between seemingly unrelated structures, and sometimes had to feel embarrassed for not seeing the obvious pattern myself.
In a similar vein, and very interesting for coding theorists, is this page. Set up by kernel and nethack hacker Andries Brouwer.
It's a ban at government use only. In other words, they are making linux the default OS, just like so many companies and governments in the world have chosen for MS windows as their default OS.
But same holds for OSS, unless you want to hack the old version yourself to make it understand the new file format. But that's a lot more work than simply upgrading.
Why would 1280x1024 be the limit for cinema projections because of bandwidth limitations, but 1920x1080 be possible for home? That doesn't make sense at all.
All these bandwidth and storage problems will be solved in the very near future. Film has had 100 years to evolve, digital projection will take much much less.
ObRant: Why is it that at the hypothetical mixed-background middle class dinner party, the scientists are expected to be literate, but the literati still revel in their innumeracy ?
I don't know that is, but it is true, and in fact most scientists are very literate. I don't know why literati revel in their innumeracy, but I usually blame it on their education:)
I very highly doubt that this problem has been proved to be undecidable.
As far as I know, the closest thing that has been proved is that any sufficiently large number can be written as the sum of two primes or a prime and a number that is the product of exactly two primes. This was proved by a chinese mathematician. I seem to remember that this mathematician died fairly recently.
Frey came up with the initial idea, Serre worked it out further, and indeed Ribet finished the proof of the implication. It seems extremely unlikely that Taniyama has ever expected just the slightest connection between his conjecture and FLT. It would be interesting to know if he thought the conjecture would be proved before the end of the millennium.
First, I agree that math is a great tool for all of science, but: It is much much more than a language, even a universal one. Math is soooooo much more than a descriptive tool. Math is full of very deep and beautiful connections. Those can be described in mathematical language, but the description in itself isn't very interesting. In this STW case, the connection between elliptic curves and modular functions has always been there, and we as mankind have finally uncovered it and understood enough of its secrets to see why this connection is there.
So maybe it's not of immediate use. Maybe it will never be of any practical use, or maybe it will. I don't care all that much. I'm sure most research in psychology is of even much less value to society. And don't forget: most of these mathematicians teach classes too, and some of their students might indeed become scientists and engineers developing new cool gadgets.
Slashdot Mirror
Whatever your 'magical' method or algorithm would be, it is *mathematicallly impossible* to have an algorithm that works on arbitrary files of say N bits and compresses each of them to N-1 or less bits. The mathematical proof is obtained by counting the number of files you consider as possible input (2^N) and the number possible output files (1+2+...+2^(N-1)=2^N-1). There are fewer target files than source files, so whatever algorithm you come up with, there will be two files that are 'compressed' to the same file, so you wouldn't be able to properly decompress.
Of course you could put the original file into the decompression binary and simply compress to a single 1 bit, or to the empty file for that matter, but in that case you need a different decompressor for each compressed file, and hence you should add the size of the decompressor to the compressed size.
Btw, Signail11 already did a very good job at explaining all of this, and he certainly understands 'the most basic tenets of data compression'. And nobody said you're an imbecile. It is very natural to think that all files must be compressible somehow, since in your and everybody's experience all files are compressible by at least a factor of 2. But those are text files and binaries and contain repetitive patterns. In general it is not possible to mangle data to create repetition, as mathematics shows.
I don't think quake 3 will stop playing on Linux 2.4, but even if it did, there's nobody stopping you from keeping a 2.2 kernel and glibc-2.1 around. To use the 2.2 kernel you'd have to reboot, to use the lib you don't even had to do that.
Backwards compatibility is much better on Linux. No magical hacks needed like what MS has to do to win95/98.
Roblimo, when you had just started as /. editor, you messed up big time by writing up something that was terribly false, and then rewriting your story later _without_ including an 'Update:' part. And here you are doing it again. You can't just post something, let people react to that, and then change it behind their backs!!
What other squatting? That link is referring to Colgate vs Ajax.org which was clearly *NOT* a case of squatting, since the guy who registered Ajax.org did that for reasons that had nothing to do with Colgate. (And neither did it have to do with Ajax Amsterdam, for that matter.)
If growth continues at its current rate, and if we added 1 billion people in the last 12 years (so we went from 5 to 6 billion) then in the coming 12 years we'll grow to 6 * (6/5) = 7.2 billion, and in 2035 we'll be with 10.2 billion.
However, 35 years is a long time. In the last 35 years the growth rate in the western world declined considerably. Same might happen in the coming 35 years for other parts of the world.
I built a cross compiling gcc that runs on linux and compiles for windows/mingw32. Works well for what I need: producing a windows binary once in a while. For testing I use wine. My primary target is of course linux.
Cygwin binaries have to be released under the GPL, since cygwin.dll falls under the GPL. If that is a problem, mingw32 is a better choice.
Maybe not for calculus, but this facility is very useful when you study discrete structures. I've used it many times, found several connections between seemingly unrelated structures, and sometimes had to feel embarrassed for not seeing the obvious pattern myself.
In a similar vein, and very interesting for coding theorists, is this page. Set up by kernel and nethack hacker Andries Brouwer.
Exactly, they released netshow for linux a long time ago, and on their website they've been announcing a port of mediaplayer since forever.
Like there were no collaborators in France?
It's a ban at government use only. In other words, they are making linux the default OS, just like so many companies and governments in the world have chosen for MS windows as their default OS.
But same holds for OSS, unless you want to hack the old version yourself to make it understand the new file format. But that's a lot more work than simply upgrading.
There's something about JC... Jesus Christ,
Johan Cruyff, John Carmack.
Why would 1280x1024 be the limit for cinema projections because of bandwidth limitations, but 1920x1080 be possible for home? That doesn't make sense at all.
All these bandwidth and storage problems will be solved in the very near future. Film has had 100 years to evolve, digital projection will take much much less.
At least that's what the Dutch people call this continent.
Smartfilter indeed..
It's shutting out more things, like maps of the country...
Samba is used within Lucent, a large for-profit organization.
Salon.com is so great that Lucent blocks it because of the sexual content.
The Lucent proxies block salon.com because it is SEX. Your action was logged. Your behaviour is not in compliance with the Lucent corporate spirit.
I don't know that is, but it is true, and in fact most scientists are very literate. I don't know why literati revel in their innumeracy, but I usually blame it on their education :)
I very highly doubt that this problem has been proved to be undecidable.
As far as I know, the closest thing that has been proved is that any sufficiently large number can be written as the sum of two primes or a prime and a number that is the product of exactly two primes. This was proved by a chinese mathematician. I seem to remember that this mathematician died fairly recently.
Oh and 31 is not even, and 13+17 = 30 :)
And I hope that if Littlewood returns in 500 years and asks about the Riemann hypothesis, we will be able to confirm its truth.
Frey came up with the initial idea, Serre worked it out further, and indeed Ribet finished the proof of the implication. It seems extremely unlikely that Taniyama has ever expected just the slightest connection between his conjecture and FLT. It would be interesting to know if he thought the conjecture would be proved before the end of the millennium.
NO!
First, I agree that math is a great tool for all of science, but: It is much much more than a language, even a universal one. Math is soooooo much more than a descriptive tool. Math is full of very deep and beautiful connections. Those can be described in mathematical language, but the description in itself isn't very interesting. In this STW case, the connection between elliptic curves and modular functions has always been there, and we as mankind have finally uncovered it and understood enough of its secrets to see why this connection is there.
So maybe it's not of immediate use. Maybe it will never be of any practical use, or maybe it will. I don't care all that much. I'm sure most research in psychology is of even much less value to society. And don't forget: most of these mathematicians teach classes too, and some of their students might indeed become scientists and engineers developing new cool gadgets.