5 ms·

I admit I'm surprised to see this comment is still the top comment. I wrote it off when it was first written as being far too pedantic to be at all meaningful,

by eridius 12y ago

I admit I'm surprised to see this comment is still the top comment. I wrote it off when it was first written as being far too pedantic to be at all meaningful, but I guess other people are falling for the same trick. This is pure pedantry, and it's bad pedantry at that. Your argument is that Mike agreed that multiple files could be submitted, and from that you're drawing the completely baseless conclusion that the multiple files would be considered purely based on their filesize. According to a straightforward reading of the challenge, only the filesize of the decompressor and compressed file would matter. But when Mike agreed to multiple compressed files, nowhere did anyone state that only the filesize of the additional compressed files would matter. And it should be pretty obvious to anyone that you cannot simply accept just the filesize of the multiple compressed files. Because the only point in using multiple files is to try and hide extra data in either the number of files or their filenames. And that obviously violates the entire point of the challenge. If you want to take Patrick's multiple files approach to its logical conclusion, you may as well submit a bunch of zero-sized files where all of the data is stored in the filename (perhaps with an integral prefix for sorting purposes) and have your decompressor just be some variant on `echo` that strips the prefix and echoes the rest of the filename (without space separation). That way you could claim infinite compression! --- If you're still not convinced, then how about this: nowhere did Mike agree that he would not rename the decompressor or compressed file(s) prior to running the program. And a trivial renaming would have broken Patrick's "decompressor". That alone should cause his entry to obviously be a failure.

seandougall 12y ago
> completely baseless conclusion that the multiple files would be considered purely based on their file size You mean, like... > I meant can I send you a compressor and several compressed files whose total file size is less than the original uncompressed file and from which I can regenerate the original uncompressed file. (to which Mike agreed)?
- eridius 12y ago
  Since this is still a pedantry argument: Mike agreed that Patrick could send multiple files, but Mike never agreed that these files would be accepted as a winning submission. Furthermore, Mike never agreed that the filenames of the files would be considered to be meaningful data (without contributing to the filesize calculation).
  - ghayes 12y ago
    > Mike agreed that Patrick could send multiple file, but Mike never agreed that these files would be accepted as a winning submission Then what is "agreeing"? These two sentences appear logically inconsistent.
    - eridius 12y ago
      Huh? Patrick asked if he could send multiple files. Mike said yes. Again, since the context of this is pedantic arguments, agreeing that Patrick could send multiple files is not the same as agreeing that Mike would consider the multiple files to be a winning submission.
      - kazinator 12y ago
        I have to logically agree with you. Indeed, Mike never issued a statement like, "I am amending the contest rules so that multiple files decoded by a single program are admitted as a valid solution." Only, this trickerly was not Mike's intent, otherwise, of course, he would have played this card immediately. For instance: "I said you could send that to me because that is a true statement with which I therefore agree. It is undeniably true that you can send me anything you like. You can send me an e-greeting card for my birthday, and you can send me a Britney Spears MP3 as a MIME attachment. You can send me questions asking about what you can send me. Obviously, though, the only material which you can send me which also happens to conform to the contest rules is a single program and a single data file. Please re-read the contest statement; I will gladly explain any portion of it that is not clear." Mike had no need to complain that the program isn't a decompressor. He should have played it as above. Instead, he demonstrated acceptance of the the multi-file structure of the solution by complaining that the algorithm in the program file isn't a form of compression.
caf 12y ago
In fact this solution doesn't use either the number of files or their filenames to encode additional information - it uses the sizes of those files to encode the additional information.
- anamexis 12y ago
  It does use the filenames, for ordering. If you renamed the files so they sort differently, they would not decompress correctly.
  - cnvogel 12y ago
    We probably agree that any program should be allowed to uniquely identify the files making up the input data. And if Mike would have spotted the (other) more obvious loophole, which is to store input data in only the filenames, he could have given this (possibly the only) sensible answer: "Yes, multiple files whose summed up size + the size of the decompressor are smaller than the original file are ok. But the files must be uniquely named inputfile.0 ... inputfile.NNN." Which is exactly what Patrick delivered.
    - emn13 12y ago
      But that's not what happened. Patrick, not Mike, changed the rules, and he intentionally introduced a loophole. But in doing so, he failed to specify that file names were to be left unaltered. I think it's fair that if you make intentionally tricky rules, you not be surprised when your own loopholes are exploited. Providing multiple files with the (deceptive) intention of storing data via filesystem metadata, but then failing to specify how filesystem metadata is to be treated is just asking for it.
      - oneeyedpigeon 12y ago
        This is exactly why such challenges are always entirely unsatisfactory and nothing but a pointless distraction. There might be some point in providing entertainment to both parties if the pedantry war weren't entered into, but the nature of the challenge all but guarantees that will happen. Mike will always be able to find an excuse not to pay. If Parrick had imposed the 'no file renaming' condition, Mike could have found another way in which to break his submission with a counter loophole. This type of challenge should never be made or accepted, if financial incentives are involved, without an impartial adjudicator.

by eridius 12y ago

seandougall 12y ago

> completely baseless conclusion that the multiple files would be considered purely based on their file size You mean, like... > I meant can I send you a compressor and several compressed files whose total file size is less than the original uncompressed file and from which I can regenerate the original uncompressed file. (to which Mike agreed)?

eridius 12y ago
Since this is still a pedantry argument: Mike agreed that Patrick could send multiple files, but Mike never agreed that these files would be accepted as a winning submission. Furthermore, Mike never agreed that the filenames of the files would be considered to be meaningful data (without contributing to the filesize calculation).
- ghayes 12y ago
  > Mike agreed that Patrick could send multiple file, but Mike never agreed that these files would be accepted as a winning submission Then what is "agreeing"? These two sentences appear logically inconsistent.
  - eridius 12y ago
    Huh? Patrick asked if he could send multiple files. Mike said yes. Again, since the context of this is pedantic arguments, agreeing that Patrick could send multiple files is not the same as agreeing that Mike would consider the multiple files to be a winning submission.
    - kazinator 12y ago
      I have to logically agree with you. Indeed, Mike never issued a statement like, "I am amending the contest rules so that multiple files decoded by a single program are admitted as a valid solution." Only, this trickerly was not Mike's intent, otherwise, of course, he would have played this card immediately. For instance: "I said you could send that to me because that is a true statement with which I therefore agree. It is undeniably true that you can send me anything you like. You can send me an e-greeting card for my birthday, and you can send me a Britney Spears MP3 as a MIME attachment. You can send me questions asking about what you can send me. Obviously, though, the only material which you can send me which also happens to conform to the contest rules is a single program and a single data file. Please re-read the contest statement; I will gladly explain any portion of it that is not clear." Mike had no need to complain that the program isn't a decompressor. He should have played it as above. Instead, he demonstrated acceptance of the the multi-file structure of the solution by complaining that the algorithm in the program file isn't a form of compression.

caf 12y ago

In fact this solution doesn't use either the number of files or their filenames to encode additional information - it uses the sizes of those files to encode the additional information.

anamexis 12y ago
It does use the filenames, for ordering. If you renamed the files so they sort differently, they would not decompress correctly.
- cnvogel 12y ago
  We probably agree that any program should be allowed to uniquely identify the files making up the input data. And if Mike would have spotted the (other) more obvious loophole, which is to store input data in only the filenames, he could have given this (possibly the only) sensible answer: "Yes, multiple files whose summed up size + the size of the decompressor are smaller than the original file are ok. But the files must be uniquely named inputfile.0 ... inputfile.NNN." Which is exactly what Patrick delivered.
  - emn13 12y ago
    But that's not what happened. Patrick, not Mike, changed the rules, and he intentionally introduced a loophole. But in doing so, he failed to specify that file names were to be left unaltered. I think it's fair that if you make intentionally tricky rules, you not be surprised when your own loopholes are exploited. Providing multiple files with the (deceptive) intention of storing data via filesystem metadata, but then failing to specify how filesystem metadata is to be treated is just asking for it.
    - oneeyedpigeon 12y ago
      This is exactly why such challenges are always entirely unsatisfactory and nothing but a pointless distraction. There might be some point in providing entertainment to both parties if the pedantry war weren't entered into, but the nature of the challenge all but guarantees that will happen. Mike will always be able to find an excuse not to pay. If Parrick had imposed the 'no file renaming' condition, Mike could have found another way in which to break his submission with a counter loophole. This type of challenge should never be made or accepted, if financial incentives are involved, without an impartial adjudicator.