Newsgroups: comp.compression
Path: utzoo!utgpu!cunews!wilf
From: wilf@sce.carleton.ca (Wilf Leblanc)
Subject: Re: IP gnitaluclaC rof margorP (Was Re: Program for Calculating PI)
Message-ID: <wilf.671250025@helicon.sce.carleton.ca>
Sender: news@ccs.carleton.ca (news)
Organization: Carleton University, Ottawa, Canada
References: <28916@dime.cs.umass.edu> <24380001@hpdmd48.boi.hp.com> 	<JPC.91Apr9141953@alfa.fct.unl.pt> <OTTO.91Apr9211427@tukki.jyu.fi>
Date: 10 Apr 91 02:20:25 GMT

otto@tukki.jyu.fi (Otto J. Makela) writes:

>In article <JPC.91Apr9141953@alfa.fct.unl.pt> jpc@fct.unl.pt (Jose Pina Coelho) writes:
>   Won't work, PI is uncompressible, one billion digits won't fit in a
>   diskette.  On the other hand, if you run the program on the cray you'll
>   have PI in the cray in a lot less time (after all, diskettes are slow). 

>I wouldn't be so sure about it.  Pi is globally high-entropy but locally
>displays repeated sequences etc., which should make it compressable.  Of
>course it doesn't compress very much, but it does compress some.
>--

This post started out as a joke, and most in net.land may think it is
still a joke.  Pi, e, 1.00, and any number we can generate
with a finite length program is (very) compressible, and contains
very little information.
Using Pi as the basis for a compression algorithm is also rather
foolish (IMHO), since why should Pi have any better properties
than any other random (or pseudo-random) sequence ??

Pi is Pi is Pi, and has slightly more information than 1, but slightly
less than 2.2, and not just because Pi can be written with 2
chars, and 2.2 requires 3  (-;

So the bottom line is that I'll shutup about Pi now, and hope that
this thread will end soon.

--
Wilf LeBlanc, Carleton University, Systems & Comp. Eng. Ottawa, Canada, K1S 5B6
Internet: wilf@sce.carleton.ca   UUCP: ...!uunet!mitel!cunews!sce!wilf
                Oh, cruel fate! Why do you mock me so! (H. Simpson)
