In math (and C++) you can define things to mean whatever you want. You can define + to mean = and define = to mean +. Then you can write 2 + 2 = 0.
It's just more clear if you use the same definitions as everyone else. Like with "lossy" and "lossless". On Fri, Nov 19, 2021, 8:15 AM John Rose <[email protected]> wrote: > 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 <https://agi.topicbox.com/latest>* > / AGI / see discussions <https://agi.topicbox.com/groups/agi> + > participants <https://agi.topicbox.com/groups/agi/members> + > delivery options <https://agi.topicbox.com/groups/agi/subscription> > Permalink > <https://agi.topicbox.com/groups/agi/T5ff6237e11d945fb-Mbbbf1ea2ac63f33c7d92be84> > ------------------------------------------ Artificial General Intelligence List: AGI Permalink: https://agi.topicbox.com/groups/agi/T5ff6237e11d945fb-Mef20175b802dac8bd12b1405 Delivery options: https://agi.topicbox.com/groups/agi/subscription
