Let's crack Sloot algorithm - infinite "compression"

[triangle]

Http://jansloot.telcomsoft.nl

When somebody reaches an high stage in a multi-national trust like Phillipps he will think twice to leave this save position and to risc his name and reputation !

I agree with you, however everyone can make mistakes! He didnt had any profile on computer science, he just was impressed with what he seen.

[purelyconstructive]

What a fascinating topic! I had never heard of Sloot's work previously, but some of the things that have been pointed out to me about Marko Rodin's Vortex-Based Mathematics covers similar ground, especially a few of the ideas written about within this thread. Here is an article that introduces some basic concepts as they relate to the research being done here; please feel free to skip over it if it does not interest you...

A Simple Mathematical Approach To File "Compression" (and The Physics Behind It)

• A file of any type is merely a binary number. The size of the file determines the length of the binary number used to represent it.

When represented in a higher base, that binary number takes on a smaller form. For example, the same binary number represented within decimal is going to be much shorter (i.e.: it will have fewer digits).

Main Point #1: The number itself has not changed, just the way in which it is represented. Therefore, size is not necessarily determined by the amount of data involved, but by how we choose to symbolize it. No data is being added or removed.

The real question is: Is there a fast and reliable way to convert a number from one base into another (such as from binary to decimal)?

Indeed, there is! [see "Residue Number Systems"]

• A thing does not always have to be physically present if we are given the instructions necessary to make it from scratch.

Main Point #2: If we can provide an algorithm that generates a given number, then we do not need to "store" the information itself. We can recreate it "on the fly" just by following the steps of the algorithm!

Further, if the algorithm is simple and recursive, then we only need to specify a small number of steps and how many times to repeat them.

The next best question is: What kind of algorithm do we need to do this?

We can start with simple processes that we might already know!

For example, we can take a decimal number of any size and add together its digits until we get a single digit. This is equivalent to "compressing" that number. In other words, we can represent a very large number (with many digits) as a single number (with only one digit).

Then, to "decompress" it, we merely specify how many times we need to multiply that single number by 9 in order to give us our starting number again.

The adding and multiplying procedures described above can both be done very quickly, and in turn, can be used to scale the size of a number up and down very easily. Again, a handful of small numbers can represent an incredibly large number (i.e.: one with many digits).

• We often distinguish between "analog" and "digital" signals (or to put it another way, between things which are "continuous" and "discrete"). An "analog" signal is one that can take on an "infinite" range of measured values (such as temperature, pressure, and so on). A "digital" signal is one that can be represented by a "finite" (or limited) number of states. This set of states is referred to as its "quantinization".

Computers utilize two distinct states, "off" and "on", represented by the 0's and 1's of binary. Therefore, computers are considered "digital", even though the electrical waves that run through their circuitry are technically considered "analog".

We can convert one signal type into the other through a process called "sampling". Many devices do this all the time (with "Analog-to-Digital Converters", or "ADCs", and "Digital-to-Analog Converters", or "DACs"). This is done with varying amounts of fidelity or "resolution". However, there is thought to be a minimum amount of information that must be present in order for one to effectively move between the two types of signals [see "Nyquist-Shannon sampling theorem"].

Therefore, the final "million dollar" question is: Is it possible to create a sampling process where there is a 1-to-1 correspondence between an analog and digital signal? Where no information is "lost" and what is necessary can be retrieved?

As strange as it may sound, logic would dictate that this may actually be possible (and without introducing concepts outside of "standard" science). For example, we interpret all energy as both "quantized" and "conserved". In other words, it comes in distinct packets (like "photons" of light) and it never disappears completely, only changes form!

To put it more plainly, there is no such thing as an "analog" signal per se, only systems that seem so complex that we try to approximate them with numbers, rather than represent them directly as numbers. At a high enough resolution, all signals are "digital".

---------

For those of you who are interested in Vortex-Based Mathematics, here is a series of articles that builds it all "from the ground up":

• The Universe: A Play In Four Acts
Description: A condensed introduction to some fundamental patterns within Vortex-Based Mathematics

• It's Vortices! Vortices All The Way Down!
Description: Developing the fundamental patterns with an eye for their application within science

• The Flux Thruster
Description: Exploring the "proof of concept" for creating technologies based on Vortex-Based Mathematics

• The Machine Becomes A Ghost
Description: Laying a foundation for "artificial intelligence" by mimicking Nature within the basics of computer hardware and software

They are written with the intention of being understandable to anyone with very little background, but also give ideas that would be valuable to someone with a deeper understanding of the subjects involved (such as an engineer, mathematician, physicist, etc.).

Personally, I won't claim to know much about anything, but I am absolutely certain that we can all work together to use this type of information to benefit all of humanity in incredible ways.

Thank you for reading. Happy Studies! ♥

[nix85]

interview with sloot's son, ofc, he knows nothing

he has good suspicion that big companies are already using this in secret

https://factsaboutdirk.wordpress.com/2018/09/13/interview-with-ben-sloot-son-of-inventor-jan-sloot/

some good ideas here. i like the MIDI music analogy, short keys instruct the cpu to generate music which has much more information in it than the keys do


https://ask.slashdot.org/story/17/06/09/0025250/ask-slashdot-what-is-your-view-on-sloot-compression

[nix85]

this guy makes a good point that if it worked as sloot claimed it would be possible to encode dozens of movies in ending credits of first movie and so on, or why not use each frame to encode set of keys for a movie, so 1 "movie" could contain hundreds of thousands of movies and each of those movies also, and so on to infinity

really sounds fishy

"however sloot claimed his video encoding to be so good that you could have on a floppy all the movies in the world- because recursion, if his scheme worked you could encode the next movie in the images in the credits scene of the previous movie - THIS SHOULD clue people in that it was just all bullshit, but for some reason doesn't? how hard is it for people to grasp this recursion problem of arbitrary information? it has nothing to do with if the compression scheme is procedural or not, it's just about if you can point to so much arbitrary data with so little data."

[triangle]

Sloot patent is all about compression.

I read it yesterday.

But if you read it carefully, it needs previous data to calculate new,
and overwrite previous.
Very simple.

Third time. No more questions.

We still waiting for you to replicate this as you stated its simple! When will you tell the forum members you cracked the Sloot Algorithm?