a
canonical form, or
Discarding either x or x' is not a lossy
operation?
Mark
- Original Message -
From: "Matt Mahoney" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: agi@v2.listbox.com
Sent: Sunday, August 27, 2006 10:32 PM
Subject: Re: [agi] Lossy ** lossless
compressi
In showing that compre
On 8/28/06, Mark Waser [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
How does a lossless model observe that Jim is extremely fat and James continues
to be morbidly obese are approximately equal?
Actually I think I just may have invented one possible way to do that using a lossless probabilistic model in my
Message -
From: Sampo Etelavuori [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: agi@v2.listbox.com
Sent: Monday, August 28, 2006 8:56 AM
Subject: **SPAM** Re: [agi] Lossy ** lossless compressi
On 8/28/06, Mark Waser [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
How does a lossless model observe that Jim is extremely fat and James
On 8/28/06, Mark Waser wrote:
How does a lossless model observe that Jim is extremely fat and James
continues to be morbidly obese are approximately equal?
I realize this is far beyond the capabilities of current data compression
programs, which typically predict the next byte in the
Mahoney [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: agi@v2.listbox.com
Sent: Monday, August 28, 2006 3:37 PM
Subject: Re: [agi] Lossy ** lossless compressi
On 8/28/06, Mark Waser wrote:
How does a lossless model observe that Jim is extremely fat and James
continues to be morbidly obese are approximately equal
On 8/25/06, Matt Mahoney [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
As I stated earlier, the fact that there is normal variation in human language
models makes it easier for a machine to pass the Turing test. However, a
machine with a lossless model will still outperform one with a lossy model
because the
, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
- Original Message
From: Philip Goetz [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: agi@v2.listbox.com
Sent: Sunday, August 27, 2006 9:23:25 PM
Subject: Re: [agi] Lossy ** lossless compressi
On 8/25/06, Matt Mahoney [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
As I stated earlier, the fact that there is normal
