Timeline for Using base 80 for compressing files
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
18 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sep 14, 2014 at 17:31 | comment | added | babou | I fail to understand these discussions: the OP is only asking whether it is possible. The answer is simply YES. But the question is totally uninteresting since he does not say for what purpose he wants to use base 80, and thus does not ask whether it might be a good idea for the purpose (though I cannot stretch my imagination to conceive a useful purpose). | |
| Sep 13, 2014 at 12:55 | vote | accept | Kinani | ||
| Sep 11, 2014 at 16:18 | comment | added | supercat | @ThomasW.: Actually, bases other than 256 are often advantageous in a compression scheme. When compressing base-256 data to base-256 data, there must be some sequence of input data whose "compressed" result will be larger than the original. By contrast, because rendering four-octet chunks to base-85 without compression is not perfectly efficient, there's room to add compression to such a scheme without affecting the worst-case behavior. | |
| Sep 11, 2014 at 14:10 | comment | added | Thomas Weller | Base 256 is much better, because your number then fits exactly into one byte and you don't need to do extra bit fiddling. | |
| Sep 11, 2014 at 11:58 | history | tweeted | twitter.com/#!/StackCompSci/status/510034541659295744 | ||
| Sep 11, 2014 at 7:40 | answer | added | Michel Rouzic | timeline score: 2 | |
| Sep 11, 2014 at 1:59 | comment | added | Sophie Swett | If you find patterns and represent them in symbols, you've created a working compression algorithm (as long as the representation is shorter than the original pattern). This is how all compression algorithms work. | |
| Sep 10, 2014 at 23:44 | answer | added | Luke Mills | timeline score: 0 | |
| Sep 10, 2014 at 20:52 | comment | added | Kinani | I mean what if i could find some patterns and represent them in symbols ? | |
| Sep 10, 2014 at 18:45 | answer | added | Ángel | timeline score: 3 | |
| Sep 10, 2014 at 17:15 | comment | added | supercat | @DavidRicherby: I can't think of much value to base 80, but there is actually some real value in using base-85: it can convert groups of four octets into five printable characters. While the storage efficiency isn't a huge improvement over base-64 (twenty characters will represent fifteen octets in base-64 and sixteen in base-85), the fact that the basic data "chunk" is 32 bits rather than 24 can sometimes be very helpful. | |
| Sep 10, 2014 at 14:13 | answer | added | Pseudonym♦ | timeline score: 10 | |
| Sep 10, 2014 at 13:05 | comment | added | David Richerby | Frank's answer explains why this doesn't work. But here's something you could have asked yourself before you started: what special property of the number 80 do you think you are using? Unless there's something special about 80, if your idea worked for 80, wouldn't it work better for 81? Or 801? | |
| Sep 10, 2014 at 13:05 | comment | added | Raphael | See also here. | |
| Sep 10, 2014 at 13:04 | history | edited | Raphael | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
deleted 52 characters in body; edited title
|
| Sep 10, 2014 at 13:00 | answer | added | FrankW | timeline score: 30 | |
| Sep 10, 2014 at 12:43 | review | First posts | |||
| Sep 10, 2014 at 12:56 | |||||
| Sep 10, 2014 at 12:36 | history | asked | Kinani | CC BY-SA 3.0 |