Compression size

  • Thread starter Thread starter Guest
  • Start date Start date
Peter said:
LZW is _not_ a COMPLETELY different algorithm. A COMPLETELY different
algorithm would share absolutely zero similarities.

All of the algorithms spawned by Lempel and Ziv, including the LZW
algorithm, share various similarities. Some have more similarities in
common than others, but they are ALL "some form" of each other. They
all share the same heritage, and in many ways address similar problems
with similar approaches. All of the LZ-based algorithms, being
dictionary-based, are much more similar to each other than they are to,
for example, Huffman encoding.
Click to expand...

LZ77 and LZW are both dictionary based, but that does not make LZ77
a form of LZW.
You seem to have this pathological need to find fault in whatever has
been written, at least with respect to my own posts, regardless of how
contrivedly narrow you have to interpret what was actually written, even
to the point of completely ignoring whatever intent actually existed in
what was written.
Click to expand...

Let us take a step back.

You started by writing:

#Two standard compression algorithms on which much (nearly all,
#actually, as far as I know) of our lossless compression tools are built
#on are Huffman encoding and the Lempel-Ziv-Welch algorithm.

I replied:

#Absolutely untrue.
#
#LZ78 (LZW) is used in traditional Unix compress.
#
#But ZIP and GZip uses LZ77.

That is not an interpretation. What you wrote was plain wrong.

The most common compression tools does not use LZW.
Frankly, I find _that_ to be "complete bullshit", and I'm sick and tired
of it. I go to a lot of trouble to make what I write as correct as I
can, and to make it clear where my first-hand knowledge of something is
vague or incomplete. When someone posts a _valid_ correction to
something I've written, I have no problem acknowledging my mistake, and
I've posted my share of "mea culpas" here in this newsgroup and others.
Click to expand...

Well in this case you have tried to cover your mistake with various
lame excuses:

#In what way is LZ77 (the algorithm you wrote is used with the ZIP
#format) _not_ "some form" of the LZW algorithm?

instead of just admitting that you remembered wrong regarding LZW.

Arne
 
LZ77 and LZW are both dictionary based, but that does not make LZ77
a form of LZW.
Click to expand...

Why not? Who are you that you get to define what "a form" is? Why is
your definition any more important or correct than mine? Where is the
"official" definition of "a form" on which you base your claim?

I have explained my basis for my usage of the phrase "some form" or "a
form". You have not bothered to explain your basis, but even if you
should happen to, why would your explanation take priority over mine with
respect to interpreting what *I* wrote?

You have a pretty arrogant view of your own importance in how language
should be used, especially when it comes to the intent of someone _else's_
use of language.
[...]
Well in this case you have tried to cover your mistake with various
lame excuses:
Click to expand...

Baloney. I made no mistake, and I stand by my original post. I am not
trying to "cover" anything. It is only your pathological need to find
fault that has resulted in this inane sub-thread.

And inane it is. Frankly, I'm a bit embarassed to have even bothered
feeding your troll-like behavior, and I'm done.

To anyone else who has rightly identified this as a useless sub-thread, I
apologize for it and promise that my involvement with it, as well as more
generally with Arne's continued insistence on finding fault where none
exists, is over with. Life's too short to waste time on idiotic stuff
like this.

Pete
 
Back
Top