On Thursday, November 18, 2021, at 12:15 PM, Matt Mahoney wrote: > No, it's more lossy. Not that lossiness has a numeric value, but if it did, a > reasonable measure would be the percent reduction in size. The part we > discard typically has higher Kolmogorov complexity due to being mostly random > noise that can't be compressed losslessly.
Doesn’t it more depend on the data to be compressed, it’s complexity distribution, and how the two or more compressors work with each other over the data if we are talking about loss In regards to the whole, say if it’s an image. An intent might be to introduce losslessness to lossyness to lose less overall instead of just better compression ratios. Though some regions of lossyness might become more lossy. And there are reasons in some cases to lose less even in the non-visualizable regions. Across all scenarios of compressors, data, and interoperabilities - I'm not sure if it would be less lossy or more lossy or equal. ------------------------------------------ Artificial General Intelligence List: AGI Permalink: https://agi.topicbox.com/groups/agi/T5ff6237e11d945fb-Mbbbf1ea2ac63f33c7d92be84 Delivery options: https://agi.topicbox.com/groups/agi/subscription
