🧵 Untitled Thread
Anonymous at Thu, 7 Mar 2024 15:54:55 UTC No. 16061460
maidfag btfo by math and logic
Anonymous at Thu, 7 Mar 2024 18:38:12 UTC No. 16061636
>>16061460
zstd goes ziiiiiiiiip
Anonymous at Thu, 7 Mar 2024 18:56:59 UTC No. 16061648
>>16061460
Isn't compressing two different data to the same value just a bad compression algorithm?
Anonymous at Thu, 7 Mar 2024 19:04:58 UTC No. 16061654
>>16061648
You must have understood 5 percent of this image, that's wild
Anonymous at Thu, 7 Mar 2024 19:12:19 UTC No. 16061670
>>16061659
well i finally read a tooker post, disappointed to say the last...
Anonymous at Thu, 7 Mar 2024 19:24:30 UTC No. 16061687
>>16061659
>Suppose there exists a moral quandry Y such that my philosophy is correct
Deep
Anonymous at Thu, 7 Mar 2024 19:32:32 UTC No. 16061694
>>16061460
This is not true. By using a black hole, we can infinitely compress data, and none of it is lost. Such black holes could be produced with a large particle accelerator too.
El Arcón at Thu, 7 Mar 2024 19:46:07 UTC No. 16061709
>>16061694
Information falling into a singularity at the center of a black hole's event horizon is maximally thermalized, which is the strongest possible form of information loss.
Anonymous at Thu, 7 Mar 2024 20:00:43 UTC No. 16061723
>>16061460
This is one of the most awkward proofs I've ever seen, if still technically correct. I say technically because pretty sure a compression algorithm doesn't exist only when the bits are under maximum entropy, thanks to information theory. Nobody would want to compress random noise anyways kek.
Anonymous at Thu, 7 Mar 2024 20:16:42 UTC No. 16061743
>>16061723
>This is one of the most awkward proofs I've ever seen, if still technically correct.
Why do people on /sci/ pretend they are smart
Anonymous at Thu, 7 Mar 2024 20:33:18 UTC No. 16061758
>>16061460
Ok, and? This is midwit tier stuff, if you're going to post screenshots of textbooks at least make them about something nontrivial
Anonymous at Thu, 7 Mar 2024 21:01:25 UTC No. 16061794
>>16061758
Why didn't you post a maid pic next to this one like usual
Anonymous at Thu, 7 Mar 2024 21:04:02 UTC No. 16061800
>>16061723
i didnt even read the proof, i just glanced at it, saw the phrase “strings of length n-1”, and correctly assumed that it was using pigeon-hole. its not a complicated proof, not sure where the fuck you think bit entropy comes into play.
Anonymous at Thu, 7 Mar 2024 21:10:20 UTC No. 16061810
>>16061794
>Maid pic
? Just post actually interesting things that a third grader couldn't figure out. Is that really too much to ask of /sci/?
Anonymous at Thu, 7 Mar 2024 21:14:02 UTC No. 16061820
>>16061810
let me stamp your passport lmaoooo
Anonymous at Thu, 7 Mar 2024 21:52:22 UTC No. 16061889
>>16061460
Perfect compression would require a system of encompassment. So theoretically anything can be put inside something else.
Anonymous at Thu, 7 Mar 2024 22:13:28 UTC No. 16061912
>>16061758
Right back to /g/, faggot
Anonymous at Thu, 7 Mar 2024 22:47:22 UTC No. 16061957
>>16061460
Thank you for showing me this. I don't think compression is a function. I think compression is a procedure.
The idea that there is no function which can compress all arbitrary data doesn't really bother me.
Anonymous at Thu, 7 Mar 2024 22:50:14 UTC No. 16061961
>>16061957
Define function and procedure
Anonymous at Thu, 7 Mar 2024 22:54:10 UTC No. 16061964
>>16061957
ah shit i thought you and your buddy mandlbaur fucked off from sci already
Anonymous at Thu, 7 Mar 2024 22:55:55 UTC No. 16061972
>>16061957
Lmao you can't stump this guy!
Anonymous at Thu, 7 Mar 2024 22:58:51 UTC No. 16061975
>>16061957
Don't act like you understand what the pic is about.
Anonymous at Thu, 7 Mar 2024 23:07:26 UTC No. 16061994
>>16061957
???
Anonymous at Thu, 7 Mar 2024 23:09:53 UTC No. 16061998
>>16061961
>>16061964
>>16061972
>>16061975
>>16061994
Look, the anime anon is an insect, but you're all certified drooling retards. If a fly gets in a room, you don't stampede around and climb walls, you ignore it.
Anonymous at Thu, 7 Mar 2024 23:10:25 UTC No. 16061999
>>16061758
>>16061810
>>16061957
I hope you're happy to know that I consider you to be the most retarded poster /sci/ has ever seen
Anonymous at Thu, 7 Mar 2024 23:12:17 UTC No. 16062003
>>16061999
Most retarded poster is bodhi.
Anonymous at Thu, 7 Mar 2024 23:13:52 UTC No. 16062004
>>16062000
This
Anonymous at Thu, 7 Mar 2024 23:14:59 UTC No. 16062008
>>16061648
>bad compression algorithm?
What you mean is "lossy" compression algorithm.
Prime examples from your life might be mp3 and jpg, both of which are far from "bad".
That's why the key word in the image, right in the bold box at the top, is "lossless".
Anonymous at Thu, 7 Mar 2024 23:15:29 UTC No. 16062009
>>16061957
Oh no no no, math bros. We got too cocky ...
Anonymous at Thu, 7 Mar 2024 23:16:49 UTC No. 16062011
>>16061957
Kek
Anonymous at Thu, 7 Mar 2024 23:18:54 UTC No. 16062014
>>16061723
>doesn't even read the proof
>calls it awkward
>maximum entropy
Notice the word "universal" in the bold box at the very top of the image
Anonymous at Thu, 7 Mar 2024 23:18:58 UTC No. 16062015
>>16061709
Wrong, see my post over at /sqt/
Anonymous at Thu, 7 Mar 2024 23:21:36 UTC No. 16062019
>>16061957
I miss the days before you found out about /sci/. At least the other schizos have the dignity to leave generals alone
Anonymous at Thu, 7 Mar 2024 23:22:30 UTC No. 16062022
>>16061998
Sorry I dont want to talk about the covid vaccine and andrew tate for the 10000th time and would rather entertain the delusions of a schizophrenic tranny
Anonymous at Thu, 7 Mar 2024 23:23:38 UTC No. 16062024
>>16062000
>>16062004
>retarded samefag who could not wait to this his own statement
Anonymous at Thu, 7 Mar 2024 23:24:39 UTC No. 16062026
>>16062024
This
Anonymous at Thu, 7 Mar 2024 23:33:14 UTC No. 16062034
OP's proof is wrong. It only covers the trivial case of a finite alphabet. Over an infinite alphabet the statement doesn't hold anymore. Gödel numbers for example are a universal compression function bijectively mapping the set N* (the language of all strings over the alphabet of natural numbers) to N. This compression is optimal because it always results in a single letter.
Anonymous at Thu, 7 Mar 2024 23:36:08 UTC No. 16062038
>>16062034
Godels numbers can return larger strings though.
El Arcón at Thu, 7 Mar 2024 23:59:08 UTC No. 16062054
Ford and Ilg---based Ford and Ilg, that is---use OP result to prove that macoscopic phenomena cannot emerge from the quantum mechanics of large ensembles of particles on the order of N=10^23. This is called the Ford paradox, and it is my favorite paradox.
Anonymous at Fri, 8 Mar 2024 00:38:02 UTC No. 16062094
ford and lig my nuts
Anonymous at Fri, 8 Mar 2024 01:39:31 UTC No. 16062151
>>16061999
Okay, at least I'm not the one baffled and amazed by a simple proof any retard can replicate lol
Anonymous at Fri, 8 Mar 2024 04:47:57 UTC No. 16062320
>>16061998
flies will show up when there's a bunch of smelly shit sitting there.
in this case, the retards engaging with avatarfags, namefags, and tripfags are the shit. it's only natural with enough of them that "personality" posters trying to turn into e-celebs and capture a following show up. it's hard to get too mad at the posters, it's only natural, but they're fucking annoying anyway.
Anonymous at Fri, 8 Mar 2024 04:58:21 UTC No. 16062329
mad because youless
Anonymous at Fri, 8 Mar 2024 08:51:31 UTC No. 16062548
>another laugh at the local retard/schizo thread
meh
Anonymous at Fri, 8 Mar 2024 08:53:43 UTC No. 16062549
>>16062024
t. mad cs fag
Anonymous at Fri, 8 Mar 2024 09:09:42 UTC No. 16062555
>>16061460
>defines messages as a sequence of bits
>start using the word string
also most useless proposition, none cares
Anonymous at Fri, 8 Mar 2024 09:48:47 UTC No. 16062581
>>16062054
Maybe this is a dumb question since I'm brainfried from working 12 hrs today, but wouldn't a chaotic system be easy to compress? Just save the algorithm, initial conditions, and number of steps (or some continuous measure of time ig) and you can efficiently store a lot of data
Anonymous at Fri, 8 Mar 2024 10:22:17 UTC No. 16062603
>>16062581
Yes, tooker is retarded
Anonymous at Fri, 8 Mar 2024 10:27:35 UTC No. 16062605
>>16061957
The hubris required to reply with anything but idk given your lack of knowledge is insane
El Arcón at Fri, 8 Mar 2024 13:39:58 UTC No. 16062742
>>16062581
They're saying the algorithm that generates chaos isn't the Schrodinger equation, and that equation can't do it.
Anonymous at Fri, 8 Mar 2024 15:06:37 UTC No. 16062868
>>16061648
Not at all. The whole point of this theorem is that all compression algorithms have to end up sending two different pieces data to the same value, in some context. If that makes a compression algorithm "bad", then by that criterion, all compression algorithms are bad.
Also this >>16061654
Anonymous at Fri, 8 Mar 2024 15:15:19 UTC No. 16062884
>>16062015
What is this shit about information not being destroyed?
Information has been formally defined as order, or the reverse of entropy, and as entropy increases information is destroyed. Casually. Its not some universallly conserved property like energy or momentum.
If this is about deterministic physics, then sorry but thats has been at odds with statistical physics for a long time, predating quantum physics.
Anonymous at Fri, 8 Mar 2024 15:16:14 UTC No. 16062885
>>16062054
holy fuck, you can post pdfs on /sci/?
when did this happen?
Anonymous at Fri, 8 Mar 2024 15:40:53 UTC No. 16062912
>>16062885
cool. let me try.
El Arcón at Fri, 8 Mar 2024 15:49:49 UTC No. 16062918
>>16062885
For a few years now. (Table S1 omitted in peer-reviewed version.)
Anonymous at Fri, 8 Mar 2024 16:06:13 UTC No. 16062948
>>16062549
it says "iphone pictures". sorry no one is giving you a gold star for knowing a proof and are instead showering a tranny with attention, youll live
Anonymous at Fri, 8 Mar 2024 16:21:29 UTC No. 16062978
>>16061889
>>16062028
We did it gents! We've rednecked a solution to lossless compression, and by extension a contra juxtaposition to Godel's Incompleteness Theory!
https://youtu.be/J6UG1Jlwiow
Anonymous at Fri, 8 Mar 2024 16:26:14 UTC No. 16062984
>>16061723
>a compression algorithm doesn't exist only when the bits are under maximum entropy, thanks to information theory. Nobody would want to compress random noise anyways kek.
yes, op point is just useless and obvious theory. in practice compression is the most successful area of technology. not just compression to save big corps billions of bandwidth but ml is compression too
Anonymous at Fri, 8 Mar 2024 16:34:29 UTC No. 16062995
>>16062984
I feel compelled to point out that, unfortunately, your reading comprehension skills are severely lacking—in particular, you struggle to follow the sentence in the picture I have attached.
Anonymous at Fri, 8 Mar 2024 16:37:45 UTC No. 16063005
>>16062984
>yfw you use the noise as the compression algorithm itself
https://youtu.be/zh4gzV_x3UM
Anonymous at Fri, 8 Mar 2024 16:38:03 UTC No. 16063007
>>16062995
That these people don't understand an abstract proof or what its "point is" is a sad reflection of education. Proofs that something is impossible are common in computer science even if in practice impossible things will be approximated with heuristics (np problems), do stemfags not even get introduced to shit like this anymore https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halti
Anonymous at Fri, 8 Mar 2024 16:42:20 UTC No. 16063013
>>16063007
NTA, but why link to the halting problem? It has nothing to do with the topic or with the statement of your post.
Anonymous at Fri, 8 Mar 2024 16:44:01 UTC No. 16063017
>>16063013
How would a popular proof of something being impossible in computer science be relevant to the idea that proofs of impossibility are common in computer science, I'll be honest I have no idea.
Anonymous at Fri, 8 Mar 2024 16:47:26 UTC No. 16063028
>>16063017
Assume a top to bottom gradient where we know the contents of a spherical shape, but we also know the density of it and the shape adjusts due to said pressure variation. Can you guess the shape of the entiere objects through topological gradients?
Anonymous at Fri, 8 Mar 2024 16:50:01 UTC No. 16063030
>>16063028
>dimensional math
>in my compression algorithm
It's more likely than you think.
Anonymous at Fri, 8 Mar 2024 16:50:25 UTC No. 16063031
>>16063028
Yes surely this random topology question will save you from having no reading comprehension
Anonymous at Fri, 8 Mar 2024 16:51:57 UTC No. 16063034
>>16063030
You can just tell there are tards in this thread mad as fuck that they know graduate level math and people are instead talking about an early undergrad level proof, "GUYS IM SMART TOO!!! GUYS!!!"
El Arcón at Fri, 8 Mar 2024 16:58:58 UTC No. 16063052
Ford and Ilg's proof is ultimate genius tier.
Anonymous at Fri, 8 Mar 2024 17:02:38 UTC No. 16063063
>>16063052
tooker have you considered signing your posts with anime girls?
Anonymous at Fri, 8 Mar 2024 17:08:23 UTC No. 16063083
>>16062605
This is my Science Foundation.
Anonymous at Fri, 8 Mar 2024 20:31:23 UTC No. 16063454
>>16063083
um, what, this site is?
Anonymous at Fri, 8 Mar 2024 20:34:36 UTC No. 16063460
>>16063454
reddit
Anonymous at Fri, 8 Mar 2024 21:43:39 UTC No. 16063625
>>16061460
Serious question, why do mathfags word obvious shit like in the first half of that image? The argument in the latter half was obvious, but the first half was incomprehensible.
Anonymous at Fri, 8 Mar 2024 21:55:29 UTC No. 16063646
>>16063625
In this specific case, because the intended audience is literal children. It's an excerpt from a freshman or high-school intro text (Cummings, 'Proofs: A Long-Form Mathematics Textbook'). The section is on the pigeonhole principle.
Anonymous at Fri, 8 Mar 2024 22:30:03 UTC No. 16063709
>so buttmad he had to find where the proof is from
Anonymous at Fri, 8 Mar 2024 22:34:12 UTC No. 16063719
>>16063709
(a) I was curious when the thread got posted, since it might have been from something longer on compressibility, and was disappointed.
(b) You realize it takes all of three seconds to search a sentence from the picture with quotation marks, right? No? Are you from India?
Anonymous at Fri, 8 Mar 2024 22:37:31 UTC No. 16063723
>this proof isn't advanced enough for me, time to spend 3 days reading every reply in the thread
youre big mad