[REBOL] Re: Rebol and a new compression system.
From: tbrownell:shaw:ca at: 5-Mar-2002 13:49
Just doing additional testing with the following results
The string to compress...
A sentence is nothing more than a collection of symbols.
Original - 448 bits
Huffman only - 212 bits
LSEC - 136 bits (LFReD Standard English Compression.. our system)
Huffman/LSEC - 64 bits
By first compressing with LSEC, then compressing the results with Huffman
yields a compression of just over 14 % of original size with 0 loss.
Again, this only works with text documents or correspondence, chat dialog,
newspaper articles etc.
Terry Brownell
----- Original Message -----
From: "alan parman" <[reboler--programmer--net]>
To: <[rebol-list--rebol--com]>
Sent: Tuesday, March 05, 2002 7:20 AM
Subject: [REBOL] Re: Rebol and a new compression system.
> Terry,
> Sounds great! Would have many uses where text is the medium (html, REBOL
scripts, e-mail, etc).
> However, I will remain politely skeptical until I see it in action.
> While I don't have much experience with the mechanics of compression, I
have read some about it.
> And from that I am heartened by your description of giving better
compression for a specific type of file ("This works only for communication
using standard english words..."). _A_Lot_ of work has been done in this
area, and _many_ claims of a better system have been proven false. But, many
compression schemes are tuned for _any_ type of file (standard zip , PKZIP
WinZip etc), so claims for a better system for a specific type of file are
plausible.
> I am openly skeptical about your (implied) claim that you can greatly
compress an already compressed file ("If a better compression system than
winzip is used, then the 213 would be even smaller."). While not
impossible, I would like to see if it is a general phenomenon for any
English text file.
