4 ms·

Lempel-Ziv isn't a language, it's a class of compression algorithms. And personally I have a hard time directly consuming compressed text.

by rrss 7y ago

personjerry 7y ago
I imagine compressed text would take some time to learn, like another language. But once learned, it might be more efficient.
- daseiner1 7y ago
  fortunately, communication isn't based on efficiency
  - personjerry 7y ago
    That's a strawman argument. I've never claimed communication is based on efficiency. I'm saying we could make our communication more efficient, which you have not refuted.
    - willis936 7y ago
      Language has evolved to be efficient though. If you try to send more information than a channel can handle (ie violate Shannon’s limit) you will not send the message across. Life is noisy. Just because language is inefficient in a quiet room doesn’t mean it isn’t useful to be able to communicate on a windy day. It’s possible that with the emergence of text based conversations and more quiet rooms that language is evolving to be less felt tolerant and more (what you would call) “efficient”.
- rrss 7y ago
  I don't think humans are well matched to consuming compressed text. The first 17 verses of genesis, post LZ77, from http://www.infinitepartitions.com/art001.html http://www.infinitepartitions.com/art001.html: 001:001 In the beginning God created<25, 5>heaven an<14, 6>earth. 0<63, 5>2 A<23, 12> was without form,<55, 5>void;<9, 5>darkness<40, 4> <0, 7>upo<132, 6>face of<11, 5>deep.<93, 9>Spirit<27, 4><158, 4>mov<156, 3><54, 4><67, 9><62, 16>w<191, 3>rs<167, 9>3<73, 5><59, 4>said, Let<38, 4>r<248, 4> light:<225, 8>re<197, 5><20, 5><63, 9>4<63, 11>w<96, 5><31, 5>,<10, 3>at <153, 3><50, 4>good<70, 6><40, 4>divid<323, 6><165, 9><52, 5> from<227, 6><269, 7><102, 9>5<102, 9>call<384, 7><52, 6>Day,<388, 9><326, 9><11, 3><41, 6><98, 9>N<183, 5><406, 10><443, 3><469, 4><57, 8>mor<15, 5>w<231, 4><308, 5>irst<80, 3>y<132, 9>6<299, 28>a<48, 4>mamen<246, 3><437, 6>midst<375, 7><134, 9><383, 6><177, 6>le<290, 5><272, 6><413, 11><264, 10><429, 15>7<129, 9>mad<166, 9><117, 6><82, 6><348, 11><76, 8>which<215, 5><600, 10>nder<62, 14><115, 16><54, 11> ab<599, 3><197, 13><54, 9><470, 6><487, 7>so<169, 9>8<432, 20><108, 10>H<827, 5><397, 25><103, 9><405, 17>seco<814, 5><406, 10>9<406, 22><199, 8><235, 10><944, 7><428, 3>ga<439, 5><540, 10>toge<18, 4><45, 3>to one pl<820, 3><422, 10><604, 5>ry l<16, 4>app<981, 3><250, 8><474, 11><258, 12>10<258, 20><67, 9>E<1046, 4>;<638, 9><145, 6><234, 4><138, 8><86, 9><952, 13><75, 8><1018, 4>eas<853, 10><894, 6><883, 14><138, 9>1<290, 23><1179, 6>b<119, 5><1173, 3><11, 3>grass,<302, 7>rb<132, 9>yield<38, 4>seed<879, 10>fru<111, 3>tree<33, 10><19, 6>af<174, 3> hi<1229, 10>kin<57, 3>whose<69, 5> is<809, 4>itself,<1260, 10><148, 5><599, 23>1<1367, 16>brou<1082, 5><189, 12><58, 4><189, 4><181, 14><136, 9><154, 9><146, 7><204, 8><198, 19><175, 13><138, 4>i<1369, 10><184, 8><78, 14><401, 39>3<1160, 42>thir<753, 13>14<1460, 33>s<1155, 8><882, 10><1159, 15><780, 7><749, 3><1150, 11><100, 3><1031, 10>n<72, 4>;<769, 12>m<95, 4><361, 3><68, 9>sign<367, 7><22, 3><293, 3>aso<16, 12><79, 3><13, 7>y<430, 3>s:<192, 8><1486, 6><85, 15><185, 31><177, 10><126, 9>giv<1541, 8><573, 38>6<1343, 15>wo<562, 3><2001, 3><122, 7>;<906, 6><2019, 5><142, 7><288, 4>rul<1277, 14>d<1650, 12>l<1646, 3><45, 20><319, 6>:<937, 4><1452, 9>st<261, 3><647, 10>l<154, 11><1498, 10>s<278, 8><264, 33><256, 11><2099, 18><264, 5>,
  - personjerry 7y ago
    I'm not familiar with the gzip algorithm unfortunately. But imagine, if you're familiar with Vim, that each character in English represented some "idea" and combining them together combined the ideas just like in Vim. Then with 4 letters you could theoretically reach 26^4 concepts. Actually this is similar to how Chinese works. For example the ideogram for "grass/straw/manuscript" when combined with "berry" makes "strawberry".
    - oh_sigh 7y ago
      Why don't you familiarize yourself with it then? You're basically trying to argue a point you know nothing about, and then getting snippy that people aren't "refuting" a point that you have provided no basis for. Until humans can store large amounts of arbitrary context in their heads, and look it up very rapidly, we will not be using any kind of table based compression algorithms. And that is exactly how English works. You take a basket, and a ball, and make basketball. Or grape, and soda, and make grape soda.

Lempel-Ziv isn't a language, it's a class of compression algorithms. And personally I have a hard time directly consuming compressed text.

by rrss 7y ago

Lempel-Ziv isn't a language, it's a class of compression algorithms. And personally I have a hard time directly consuming compressed text.

personjerry 7y ago

I imagine compressed text would take some time to learn, like another language. But once learned, it might be more efficient.

daseiner1 7y ago
fortunately, communication isn't based on efficiency
- personjerry 7y ago
  That's a strawman argument. I've never claimed communication is based on efficiency. I'm saying we could make our communication more efficient, which you have not refuted.
  - willis936 7y ago
    Language has evolved to be efficient though. If you try to send more information than a channel can handle (ie violate Shannon’s limit) you will not send the message across. Life is noisy. Just because language is inefficient in a quiet room doesn’t mean it isn’t useful to be able to communicate on a windy day. It’s possible that with the emergence of text based conversations and more quiet rooms that language is evolving to be less felt tolerant and more (what you would call) “efficient”.
rrss 7y ago
I don't think humans are well matched to consuming compressed text. The first 17 verses of genesis, post LZ77, from http://www.infinitepartitions.com/art001.html http://www.infinitepartitions.com/art001.html: 001:001 In the beginning God created<25, 5>heaven an<14, 6>earth. 0<63, 5>2 A<23, 12> was without form,<55, 5>void;<9, 5>darkness<40, 4> <0, 7>upo<132, 6>face of<11, 5>deep.<93, 9>Spirit<27, 4><158, 4>mov<156, 3><54, 4><67, 9><62, 16>w<191, 3>rs<167, 9>3<73, 5><59, 4>said, Let<38, 4>r<248, 4> light:<225, 8>re<197, 5><20, 5><63, 9>4<63, 11>w<96, 5><31, 5>,<10, 3>at <153, 3><50, 4>good<70, 6><40, 4>divid<323, 6><165, 9><52, 5> from<227, 6><269, 7><102, 9>5<102, 9>call<384, 7><52, 6>Day,<388, 9><326, 9><11, 3><41, 6><98, 9>N<183, 5><406, 10><443, 3><469, 4><57, 8>mor<15, 5>w<231, 4><308, 5>irst<80, 3>y<132, 9>6<299, 28>a<48, 4>mamen<246, 3><437, 6>midst<375, 7><134, 9><383, 6><177, 6>le<290, 5><272, 6><413, 11><264, 10><429, 15>7<129, 9>mad<166, 9><117, 6><82, 6><348, 11><76, 8>which<215, 5><600, 10>nder<62, 14><115, 16><54, 11> ab<599, 3><197, 13><54, 9><470, 6><487, 7>so<169, 9>8<432, 20><108, 10>H<827, 5><397, 25><103, 9><405, 17>seco<814, 5><406, 10>9<406, 22><199, 8><235, 10><944, 7><428, 3>ga<439, 5><540, 10>toge<18, 4><45, 3>to one pl<820, 3><422, 10><604, 5>ry l<16, 4>app<981, 3><250, 8><474, 11><258, 12>10<258, 20><67, 9>E<1046, 4>;<638, 9><145, 6><234, 4><138, 8><86, 9><952, 13><75, 8><1018, 4>eas<853, 10><894, 6><883, 14><138, 9>1<290, 23><1179, 6>b<119, 5><1173, 3><11, 3>grass,<302, 7>rb<132, 9>yield<38, 4>seed<879, 10>fru<111, 3>tree<33, 10><19, 6>af<174, 3> hi<1229, 10>kin<57, 3>whose<69, 5> is<809, 4>itself,<1260, 10><148, 5><599, 23>1<1367, 16>brou<1082, 5><189, 12><58, 4><189, 4><181, 14><136, 9><154, 9><146, 7><204, 8><198, 19><175, 13><138, 4>i<1369, 10><184, 8><78, 14><401, 39>3<1160, 42>thir<753, 13>14<1460, 33>s<1155, 8><882, 10><1159, 15><780, 7><749, 3><1150, 11><100, 3><1031, 10>n<72, 4>;<769, 12>m<95, 4><361, 3><68, 9>sign<367, 7><22, 3><293, 3>aso<16, 12><79, 3><13, 7>y<430, 3>s:<192, 8><1486, 6><85, 15><185, 31><177, 10><126, 9>giv<1541, 8><573, 38>6<1343, 15>wo<562, 3><2001, 3><122, 7>;<906, 6><2019, 5><142, 7><288, 4>rul<1277, 14>d<1650, 12>l<1646, 3><45, 20><319, 6>:<937, 4><1452, 9>st<261, 3><647, 10>l<154, 11><1498, 10>s<278, 8><264, 33><256, 11><2099, 18><264, 5>,
- personjerry 7y ago
  I'm not familiar with the gzip algorithm unfortunately. But imagine, if you're familiar with Vim, that each character in English represented some "idea" and combining them together combined the ideas just like in Vim. Then with 4 letters you could theoretically reach 26^4 concepts. Actually this is similar to how Chinese works. For example the ideogram for "grass/straw/manuscript" when combined with "berry" makes "strawberry".
  - oh_sigh 7y ago
    Why don't you familiarize yourself with it then? You're basically trying to argue a point you know nothing about, and then getting snippy that people aren't "refuting" a point that you have provided no basis for. Until humans can store large amounts of arbitrary context in their heads, and look it up very rapidly, we will not be using any kind of table based compression algorithms. And that is exactly how English works. You take a basket, and a ball, and make basketball. Or grape, and soda, and make grape soda.