sorry typo,

because there are _7_ symbols in the 6 bit code.
On Sep 11, 2014 7:26 AM, "bill lam" <[email protected]> wrote:

> for zlib, all huffman code of the same bit length are in sequential,
> starting with a code an 0 bit in the end (even number), and no gaps in the
> block (consecutive). the symbols of these block represented are sequential
> but not consecutive (possibly gaps). So the zlib huffman code is slightly
> less efficient than the original huffman code but the advantage is simpler
> to store the table, just the bits used. section 3.2.6 gives an example of
> such table.
>
> deflatecodes can satisfy the 2 rules _but_ its result is invalid because
> huffman code is a prefix coding.
>
>    ,.F1 ( deflatecodes)  A1
> ┌─────────────┐
> │0            │
> ├─────────────┤
> │1 1 0        │
> ├─────────────┤
> │1 1 1 0 0 1 0│
> ├─────────────┤
> │1 1 1 0 0 1 1│
> ├─────────────┤
> │1 1 1 0 0 0  │
> ├─────────────┤
> │1 1 1 0 0 1  │
> ├─────────────┤
> │1 1 1 0 1 0  │
> ├─────────────┤
> │1 1 1 0 1 1  │
> ├─────────────┤
> │1 1 1 1 0 0  │
> ├─────────────┤
> │1 1 1 1 0 1  │
> ├─────────────┤
> │1 1 1 1 1 0  │
> ├─────────────┤
> │1 0          │
> └─────────────┘
>   7 bit 1110010 is a prefix of 6 bit 111001 and this is illegal.
> Instead 7 bit code block should start with
> #.inv 2b11100 +  7
> 1 1 1 1 1 1 0
> because there are 6 symbols in the 6 bit code.  (algorithm given in
> section 3.2.2).
>
> Any idea to fix deflatecodes so that it can give valid huffman codes?
> Thanks.
> On Sep 11, 2014 1:01 AM, "Raul Miller" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> I think the use of the term "consecutive" rather than "sequential" is
>> telling.
>>
>> The described algorithm is: compute the huffman code lengths:
>>    #@>F1 hcodes A1
>> 1 3 7 7 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 2
>>
>> Then assign ascending huffman codes first in length order and then
>> within codes of the same length.
>>
>> Taken literally, that might be something like this:
>>
>> H=: 4 :0
>>   L=.#@> x hcodes y
>>   U=.~.L
>>   ;<@(({.{.U e.~i.&.<:@{.)<@:+"1-@{.{."1 #:@i.@#)/.~L
>> )
>>
>>    ":@>F1 H A1
>> 0
>> 1 1 0
>> 1 1 1 0 0 1 0
>> 1 1 1 0 0 1 1
>> 1 1 1 0 0 0
>> 1 1 1 0 0 1
>> 1 1 1 0 1 0
>> 1 1 1 0 1 1
>> 1 1 1 1 0 0
>> 1 1 1 1 0 1
>> 1 1 1 1 1 0
>> 1 0
>>
>> But is this correct? Is it actually safe to leave the results like
>> this - with all codes of the same length being consecutive to each
>> other?
>>
>>    F (hcodes -:&:(#@>) H) A
>> 0
>>
>> No.
>>
>> So... "consecutive" must refer only to the values used and not their
>> order within the result.
>>
>> Perhaps something like this:
>>
>> deflatecodes=:4 :0
>>   L=.#@> x hcodes y
>>   U=.~.L
>>   R=. ;<@(({.{.U e.~i.&.<:@{.)<@:+"1-@{.{."1 #:@i.@#)/.~L
>>   R/:;(</. i.@#)L
>> )
>>
>>    F (hcodes -:&:(#@>) deflatecodes)  A
>> 1
>>
>> There should be a better way of doing this, but this should at least
>> get you started.
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> --
>> Raul
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Sep 10, 2014 at 10:45 AM, bill lam <[email protected]> wrote:
>> > For huffman coding used in zlib:
>> > https://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc1951.txt section 3.2.2.
>> >
>> >  The Huffman codes used for each alphabet in the "deflate"
>> >  format have two additional rules:
>> >
>> >   * All codes of a given bit length have lexicographically
>> >   consecutive values, in the same order as the symbols
>> >   they represent;
>> >
>> >   * Shorter codes lexicographically precede longer codes.
>> > I tried jwiki hcodes in
>> > I try Roger's essay
>> > http://www.jsoftware.com/jwiki/Essays/Huffman%20Coding
>> >
>> > hc=: 4 : 0
>> > if. 1=#x do. y
>> > else. ((i{x),+/j{x) hc (i{y),<j{y [ i=. (i.#x) -. j=. 2{./:x end.
>> > )
>> >
>> > hcodes=: 4 : 0
>> > assert. x -:&$ y           NB. weights and words have same shape
>> > assert. (0<:x) *. 1=#$x    NB. weights are non-negative
>> > assert. 1 >: L.y           NB. words are boxed not more than once
>> > w=. ,&.> y                 NB. standardized words
>> > assert. w -: ~.w           NB. words are unique
>> > t=. 0 {:: x hc w           NB. minimal weight binary tree
>> > ((< S: 0 t) i. w) { <@(1&=)@; S: 1 {:: t
>> > )
>> >
>> > but the coding produced is malformed for zlib. eg,
>> > this is what I ran into trouble
>> >
>> > f1=: 1 256 17 1 1 9 1
>> > f2=: 2 1 0 1 255 0 1536
>> > F=: ,/(f1#f2)
>> > A=: i.286
>> >
>> > F hcodes A
>> >
>> > Or a shorter example
>> >
>> > A1=: i.12
>> > F1=: 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
>> >
>> > F1 hcodes A1
>> >
>> > Any idea?
>> >
>> > --
>> > regards,
>> > ====================================================
>> > GPG key 1024D/4434BAB3 2008-08-24
>> > gpg --keyserver subkeys.pgp.net --recv-keys 4434BAB3
>> > gpg --keyserver subkeys.pgp.net --armor --export 4434BAB3
>> > ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>> > For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>> For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm
>>
>
----------------------------------------------------------------------
For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm

Reply via email to