On 14 July 2016 at 05:35, Marko Rauhamaa wrote:
> Michael Torrie :
> > If the data is truly random then it does not matter whether you have 5
> > bytes or 5 GB. There is no pattern to discern, and having more chunks
> > of random data won't make it possible to compress.
>
> That's true if "truly
Michael Torrie :
> If the data is truly random then it does not matter whether you have 5
> bytes or 5 GB. There is no pattern to discern, and having more chunks
> of random data won't make it possible to compress.
That's true if "truly random" means "evenly distributed". You might have
genuine ra
On 2016-07-13, Michael Torrie wrote:
> On 07/13/2016 03:46 AM, jonas.thornv...@gmail.com wrote:
>> It is not that the data is not compressible i just need more chunks
>> or random data, it is the footprint of the algorithm that has a
>> certain it is a structure afterall albeit richer in interpre
On 07/13/2016 03:46 AM, jonas.thornv...@gmail.com wrote:
> It is not that the data is not compressible i just need more chunks
> or random data, it is the footprint of the algorithm that has a
> certain it is a structure afterall albeit richer in interpretation
> than the numerical field.
Err, no,
