3 ms·
Lossless should be possible, except for unknown words that are less than the maximum number of corrections away from a dictionary word. Compression rate will be
by tgv 4y ago
Lossless should be possible, except for unknown words that are less than the maximum number of corrections away from a dictionary word. Compression rate will be low, though. It can be pre-computed for known words: replace each word by its compressed version. And that is a very old, and more flexible idea.
- SemanticStrengh 4y ago> It can be pre-computed for known words: replace each word by its compressed version. And that is a very old, and more flexible idea. Can you link me some resources on those optimizations?
- estebarb 4y agoIt is dictionary compression: https://en.m.wikibooks.org/wiki/Data_Compression/Dictionary_compression https://en.m.wikibooks.org/wiki/Data_Compression/Dictionary_...
- estebarb 4y agoHumans are pretty good understanding texts with missing letters. I guess that if it considers also the context it would be possible to predict better the destroyed words. But basically, we would be storing the missing information in the decoder, not in the data (which is not bad idea, considering that most most languages are used more than once). If we also only modify the letters that can be recovered successfully... And also, this would not contradict the pigeonhole principle. Some words would be impossible to store, like a text full of typos. It would require escaping the word somehow, producing documents longer than the original.