In general, no. If the first compression algorithm is competent, then the first compressed file wouldn't have lots of patterns that repeat themselves many times. You might be able to extract some patterns, but the overhead for storing these patterns would most likely exceed whatever space you can save. For example, you can try to zip some videos that use compressed codec, and your zipped file wouldn't be that much different from your original video file.
Okay guys... I'm reading up on your excellent input, absorbing it, thinking about it, and reading up on it. I will consider all of this and re-check my results. And, yes, I have no experience at all in data compression - that's why I posted here.
Ha, I doubt any of us here are experts on data compression. All the examples I've talked about are only on data that only contains ASCII characters, and these files only account for a tiny fraction of all the file types. Other file types like video, audio and images would store large quantities of integers and floating point numbers in binary format and this would make them a bit more difficult to compress. Are you serious? You've never done data compression before? So how do you know that your idea is totally new? Do you have any computer science/math background? Honestly, I'm really interested in how you can compress a file that contains 1 million '0' characters into something that's only 7 bits (which is smaller than a byte). Would you be able to give us some clues? I'd understand if you want to keep it secret though. Furthermore, I'm a huge huge advocate of open source software, so let me know if you are interested in going open source with your idea. If you are convinced of the validity of your idea, you can send an email to Professor Alistair Moffat who's one of the leading experts in data compression. You can find his information here: http://www.cs.mu.oz.au/~alistair/ Be sure to check out his list of publications if you doubt his credentials. Alistair is a very very smart person and holds many distinguished positions in academia. Trust me that he will never steal your ideas. However, I must tell you that you have to be very sure that your idea is at least plausibly valid before you email him, as I heard that he could be a bit harsh to stupid ideas.
I just said it's different than LZW and zip - I don't know of it's new or not. For all I know, somebody else may have thought of it long ago and proved that it doesn't work. The info that Yaoluv provided is ....kinda like my idea, but kind not. I am too, but I'm also a huge advocate of making myself rich. IF my idea ever becomes anything, I would very much like to get rich AND give it to the world (if that's possible). Thank you for that info! I'm not yet convinced if its validity, and it's sounding more and more like someone else may have already thought of it . I'm still trying to determine that. I won't send him any stupid ideas.
Heh. I've seen baseless claims of 100x compression in the past that elicited laughter, but this one takes the cake. Fit 1GB into 1 kilobyte? Lollerskates.
I only said it was an idea or a theory. Nothing more. I never said that it was proven. I never said it hasn't already been done. I have repeated several times that it may not work. You sound like you're really anxious to fart in someone's face. Unless you have something to contribute, please choose someone else's face.
perhaps this will lead to the "floppy dot" only heretofore theorized of... <object width="425" height="350"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/JILWKaQgUC0"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/JILWKaQgUC0" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="350"></embed></object>
well, look at it this way. People have been telling you all over this thread to "go for it" and to spend money.... well, don't listen to that ... i'm telling you. Don't spend a dime. there you go. you are going to have to trust some programmer at some point to 'splain your idea so s/he can do a feasability attempt. don't spend any money until you do that. just take your gf out for a nice dinner or two or three...that's much more of a guaranteed outcome.
The company that claimed 100x compression, ZeoSync threw out a bunch of BS terms like "multidimensional mathematical entities" and "relational differentiation encoding" in claiming that they had defeated the pigeon hole limitation. Of course, they no longer exist today. They weren't the first to claim it either. Sorry to rain on your parade, my friend ... I can appreciate the fact that you say it's merely a theory and doesn't have underlying proof. Just sayin' ... if you run that one by any compression expert with half a brain, all you'll get is uncontrollable laughter. It's one thing to say that you've developed a new algorithm that's twice as good as LZW. It's another thing to claim 1,000,000 to one compression - frankly, anyone who is gullible enough to believe that ... LOL.
Does that make you feel bigger and better? You can contribute an opinion w/o condescension. Quit being an ass.
