Re:Card Trick Leads to New Bound on Data Compression (2010)
by judk on Sunday August 17, 2014 @10:11AM
(#8189396)
It's not surprising, it's technologyreview, which spun out from student newspaper to linkbaity web tabloid a few years ago.
In this case, however the original paper (already linked in the HN comments) is itself a linkbaity title with content-free abstract.
Re:Card Trick Leads to New Bound on Data Compression (2010)
by 3327 on Sunday August 17, 2014 @11:51AM
(#8189620)
Surprisingly "empty" article. "Well folks we've just lowered the bound on data compression - there you have it."
No reference, No Paper not even an example of how it applies. I hope an editor notices it and they pull it out - pretty embarrassing.
Re:Card Trick Leads to New Bound on Data Compression (2010)
by grkvlt on Sunday August 17, 2014 @12:52PM
(#8189768)
> Ref: arxiv.org/abs/1011.4609 Bounds from a Card Trick
At the bottom of the article
Re:Card Trick Leads to New Bound on Data Compression (2010)
by kerkeslager on Sunday August 17, 2014 @11:24AM
(#8189561)
Yeah, I mean, if you ignore domain constraints, the following is a great compression algorithm:
$infile = $ARGS[1]
$outfile = $ARGS[2]
touch $outfile
Re:Card Trick Leads to New Bound on Data Compression (2010)
by colanderman on Sunday August 17, 2014 @01:25PM
(#8189853)
Except that's not lossless like I qualified.
What bound did they break? By how much? In what domain does the bound apply?
(There is no one "compression bound" for lossless compression; there exist infinitely many lossless compression schemes which can compress at least one sequence of arbitrary length to a single bit, and every lossless compression scheme must have an expected compression ratio over all data of 1:1. Hence knowing the domain constraints is important!)