Converting Pi to binary: Don't do it

Re:Converting Pi to binary: Don't do it by ansgri on Friday August 06, 2010 @05:39PM (#1582397)

And it directly follows that you can encode any document as 2 numbers: (start-index, length) in the Pi representation. Well, this is also a bad idea since you can always treat the entire document as one binary number...

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Converting Pi to binary: Don't do it by DrJokepu on Friday August 06, 2010 @06:23PM (#1582491)

You don't even need length because there must be an instance of the document in pi that is already prefixed by the correct length, so all you really need is the offset of the first occurrence of that variation.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Converting Pi to binary: Don't do it by StavrosK on Friday August 06, 2010 @06:02PM (#1582432)

Did you know that absolutely anything you can imagine is encrypted with an OTP in the first N digits of pi, where N is the length of your information?

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Converting Pi to binary: Don't do it by Natsu on Friday August 06, 2010 @07:25PM (#1582618)

Pity this sort of OTP is actually unbreakable.

It's because you can find absolutely anything there that you can never be sure that you've found what you're looking for.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Converting Pi to binary: Don't do it by rlpb on Saturday August 07, 2010 @12:10PM (#1583765)

It's a shame that such an index-based encoding scheme will use more bits to store the index than the size of the document itself.

[ Parent | on HN ]