## Audio mysticism

67 posts
• Page

**4**of**5**• 1, 2, 3,**4**, 5- KVRist
- 298 posts since 6 Aug, 2005, from England

Well I guess we all need to hear it working?

- KVRAF
- 10067 posts since 8 Mar, 2005, from Utrecht, Holland

Vertion wrote:

- Code: Select all
`function void reciprocal_shuffle(current_block, previous_block, inc_seed)`

// uses current block data to scramble the previous block using the increment step,

// uses xor, add/sub, ror, etc to create a recipricol scramble (reversible)

Ah, ok. So this is just a SMOP again...

We are the KVR collective. Resistance is futile. You will be assimilated.

My MusicCalc is back online!!

My MusicCalc is back online!!

- KVRian
- 1296 posts since 29 May, 2012

I haven't read the code, but from the description given apparently it's another case in which 'infinite compression' is possible, and that one is a self similar stream of infinitely looping bytes, and its compressed form would be, "here you are a set of numbers, repeat them forever in the same order, or vary according to the given formula." or, the idea can get somewhat more interesting if you can have a little chaos in it like the Mandelbrot set, which is an infinite set of interesting numbers that can be derived from a simple formula and that formula is the infinitely compressed version of the whole set.

https://en.wikipedia.org/index.php?q=aH ... WFnZS5wbmc

Unfortunately it's a topic that is better left to Hardy and Ramanujan as it would have no use in the 'less interesting' world of musicdsp engineering in its best form (and its lesser good forms can quickly be deciphered as being non-mystical)

https://en.wikipedia.org/index.php?q=aH ... WFnZS5wbmc

Unfortunately it's a topic that is better left to Hardy and Ramanujan as it would have no use in the 'less interesting' world of musicdsp engineering in its best form (and its lesser good forms can quickly be deciphered as being non-mystical)

~stratum~

- KVRAF
- 4597 posts since 11 Feb, 2006, from Helsinki, Finland

Vertion wrote:This is real.

You know there's a term used to describe people who come up with "infinite compressions schemes" and that term is "crazy people." It's very clear to all of us here that this seems very real to you, which is why I urge you to seek help from a mental health professional and see if they can help you.

<- plugins | forum

- KVRist
- 298 posts since 6 Aug, 2005, from England

I can place an infinite number of typewriting monkeys in a universe sized room. And... oh hang on, monkey number three just came up with the Complete Works of Shakespeare, so that saved a bit of time!!

- KVRist
- 34 posts since 26 Sep, 2005, from France

quikquak wrote:I can place an infinite number of typewriting monkeys in a universe sized room. And... oh hang on, monkey number three just came up with the Complete Works of Shakespeare, so that saved a bit of time!!

Exactly, now you just have to write down the seed, the monkey number and the number of attempts before success.

AND VOILA !

if only that pesky number was not longer than the Shakespeare work itself, that would be a nice approach !

- Beware the Quoth
- 25125 posts since 3 Sep, 2001, from R'lyeh Oceanic Amusement Park and Funfair

Chaotikmind wrote:quikquak wrote:I can place an infinite number of typewriting monkeys in a universe sized room. And... oh hang on, monkey number three just came up with the Complete Works of Shakespeare, so that saved a bit of time!!

Exactly, now you just have to write down the seed, the monkey number and the number of attempts before success.

AND VOILA !

if only that pesky number was not longer than the Shakespeare work itself, that would be a nice approach !

dont be silly; your infinite monkeys are eventually going to type that number, so you just need to ...

"The bearer of this signature is a genuine and authorised pope."

- KVRian
- 1296 posts since 29 May, 2012

You can do better and simulate Shakespeare himself in code:

http://www.iep.utm.edu/chineser/

http://www.iep.utm.edu/chineser/

~stratum~

- KVRAF
- 10067 posts since 8 Mar, 2005, from Utrecht, Holland

My monkey came this far:

- Code: Select all
`Romeo, a young man with a remarkable patience.`

Juliet, a likewise young woman of remarkable grace.

Ophelia, a remarkable woman much in dispute with Hamlet.

Hamlet, the flatterer of Andersen Insulting A/S.

Act I: Hamlet's insults and flattery.

Scene I: The insulting of Romeo.

[Enter Hamlet and Romeo]

Hamlet:

You lying stupid fatherless big smelly half-witted coward! You are as

stupid as the difference between a handsome rich brave hero and thyself!

Speak your mind!

You are as brave as the sum of your fat little stuffed misused dusty

old rotten codpiece and a beautiful fair warm peaceful sunny summer's

day. You are as healthy as the difference between the sum of the

sweetest reddest rose and my father and yourself! Speak your mind!

You are as cowardly as the sum of yourself and the difference

between a big mighty proud kingdom and a horse. Speak your mind.

Speak your mind!

[Exit Romeo]

Scene II: The praising of Juliet.

[Enter Juliet]

Hamlet:

Thou art as sweet as the sum of the sum of Romeo and his horse and his

black cat! Speak thy mind!

[Exit Juliet]

Scene III: The praising of Ophelia.

[Enter Ophelia]

Hamlet:

Thou art as lovely as the product of a large rural town and my amazing

bottomless embroidered purse. Speak thy mind!

Thou art as loving as the product of the bluest clearest sweetest sky

and the sum of a squirrel and a white horse. Thou art as beautiful as

the difference between Juliet and thyself. Speak thy mind!

[Exeunt Ophelia and Hamlet]

Act II: Behind Hamlet's back.

Scene I: Romeo and Juliet's conversation.

[Enter Romeo and Juliet]

Romeo:

Speak your mind. You are as worried as the sum of yourself and the

difference between my small smooth hamster and my nose. Speak your

mind!

Juliet:

Speak YOUR mind! You are as bad as Hamlet! You are as small as the

difference between the square of the difference between my little pony

and your big hairy hound and the cube of your sorry little

codpiece. Speak your mind!

[Exit Romeo]

Scene II: Juliet and Ophelia's conversation.

[Enter Ophelia]

Juliet:

Thou art as good as the quotient between Romeo and the sum of a small

furry animal and a leech. Speak your mind!

Ophelia:

Thou art as disgusting as the quotient between Romeo and twice the

difference between a mistletoe and an oozing infected blister! Speak

your mind!

[Exeunt]

We are the KVR collective. Resistance is futile. You will be assimilated.

My MusicCalc is back online!!

My MusicCalc is back online!!

- KVRian
- 1296 posts since 29 May, 2012

Point well taken, you could also say this:

I rarely see the masses contributing to a piece of art... and not f#cking it up.

~stratum~

- KVRAF
- 10067 posts since 8 Mar, 2005, from Utrecht, Holland

We are the KVR collective. Resistance is futile. You will be assimilated.

My MusicCalc is back online!!

My MusicCalc is back online!!

- KVRist
- 307 posts since 29 Oct, 2016

Sorry for AFK, I was hoping that this was self-evident enough for when I got back to check. That the world would have picked it up by now.. oh man.. apparently the world is a bit lacking in faith and confidence. Sometimes saying the sky is blue is too much for some without being called a radical thinker, I can think of a story like this that people read everyday. You need to validate before dismissing so easily, I'm trying hard to tactful for the gentle-minded so they can best understand. I am giving this to the world freely since it was given to me freely. It's real. None can disprove me, only ignore and dismiss, conjecture is not enough.. you will provide no real counter evidence.

BTW, yes its a simple procedure (smop).. a couple of XORs, SHR/SHLs, etc.. as long as its a reciprocal sequence (invertable function).Decoding is as follows (off the top of my head). Each of the 256 bytes wraps around when increment above 255 or decrements below 0. The fact that each is wrapped into a block of 8 means that there are a limited number of possibilities. Use the block of 8 to determine how to properly decode. Because of the nature of the statistics involved is is permitted to WORK. I'm sorry if I have to hold your hand to the 'ah-ha' moment, but I guess this is one of those situations.

http://www.roll-dice-online.com/

1 = increment (>>)

2 = decrement (<<)

3 = unknown (><)

4 = impossible/error-proof(<>)

(the possible directions of the encodings upon the noise for retracing your steps)

Start with a set of 8 tetrahedronal dice.. you have to RETRACE your steps, since you are using and random number generator to move 1 unit up or down for each of the bytes, this is what is used to DECODE. You only have 2 neighbors you could have come from, that means only deduction remains. There is noise upon the signal (obviously), but the stats work out so that it always decodes the linear encoding. Get with it. This works.. wake up. It's free, it's here, help me water this plant and get it out the door to the world. I don't want anything.. just get it out the door.. apparently you can't give away gold for free... geesh.

Start with a simple idea.. this is what the essence of decoding looks like.. see how it it unlikely to go past the first generation? This is why only the linear encoding survives.. yes it can fork out.. but the statistics allow only the original linear encoding to survive. If you have doubt (and you are at least a college graduate), ask me, I will explain until you understand.. or you prove me wrong... but dismissal is foolish.. this is working code. If you need proof that I can code. The only ones interested in quickly dismissing me are those who seek to gain from it, remember I am giving this out freely.. think of the implications. For a second.. this works. Realize that.. now work backwards .. and see the picture.. you are more than welcome to show visible proof.. right here that it is wrong.. but under no means is a laugh-off disproof... rather an indication of insecurity or interception.. rather, be quite serious and do not dismiss the concept until you get it right and fully understand.. this is truly groundbreaking., good luck.

You may call me silly if you want , but I am correct. So, if I am correct, what does that make you? Disprove me, if you can, if you can withstand it without running away from truth. I openly invite all challenges... the code is completely tangible and FREELY ... once again FREELY given away.. and TANGIBLE... no secrets here.. sorry if you are having difficulties with understanding.. I'm here if you need more understanding.

If someone wants to ask in full detail, they may. If you think I'm just silly for discovering the idea, that's fine, just don't waste either of our time please.I'll just provide some pseudo code, let me get it posted in the next day. If you need more help after that let me know. I'm not interested in wasting anyone's time, especially mine.

BTW, yes its a simple procedure (smop).. a couple of XORs, SHR/SHLs, etc.. as long as its a reciprocal sequence (invertable function).Decoding is as follows (off the top of my head). Each of the 256 bytes wraps around when increment above 255 or decrements below 0. The fact that each is wrapped into a block of 8 means that there are a limited number of possibilities. Use the block of 8 to determine how to properly decode. Because of the nature of the statistics involved is is permitted to WORK. I'm sorry if I have to hold your hand to the 'ah-ha' moment, but I guess this is one of those situations.

http://www.roll-dice-online.com/

1 = increment (>>)

2 = decrement (<<)

3 = unknown (><)

4 = impossible/error-proof(<>)

(the possible directions of the encodings upon the noise for retracing your steps)

Start with a set of 8 tetrahedronal dice.. you have to RETRACE your steps, since you are using and random number generator to move 1 unit up or down for each of the bytes, this is what is used to DECODE. You only have 2 neighbors you could have come from, that means only deduction remains. There is noise upon the signal (obviously), but the stats work out so that it always decodes the linear encoding. Get with it. This works.. wake up. It's free, it's here, help me water this plant and get it out the door to the world. I don't want anything.. just get it out the door.. apparently you can't give away gold for free... geesh.

Start with a simple idea.. this is what the essence of decoding looks like.. see how it it unlikely to go past the first generation? This is why only the linear encoding survives.. yes it can fork out.. but the statistics allow only the original linear encoding to survive. If you have doubt (and you are at least a college graduate), ask me, I will explain until you understand.. or you prove me wrong... but dismissal is foolish.. this is working code. If you need proof that I can code. The only ones interested in quickly dismissing me are those who seek to gain from it, remember I am giving this out freely.. think of the implications. For a second.. this works. Realize that.. now work backwards .. and see the picture.. you are more than welcome to show visible proof.. right here that it is wrong.. but under no means is a laugh-off disproof... rather an indication of insecurity or interception.. rather, be quite serious and do not dismiss the concept until you get it right and fully understand.. this is truly groundbreaking., good luck.

- Code: Select all
`main()`

{

callme(Random(1,2,3,4)); // random return 1, 2, 3, or 4

}

function callme(x)

{

switch (x)

{

case(1):

return 1;

case(2):

return 2;

case(3):

return callme(Random(1,2,3,4));

case(4):

return 4;

}

}

You may call me silly if you want , but I am correct. So, if I am correct, what does that make you? Disprove me, if you can, if you can withstand it without running away from truth. I openly invite all challenges... the code is completely tangible and FREELY ... once again FREELY given away.. and TANGIBLE... no secrets here.. sorry if you are having difficulties with understanding.. I'm here if you need more understanding.

If someone wants to ask in full detail, they may. If you think I'm just silly for discovering the idea, that's fine, just don't waste either of our time please.I'll just provide some pseudo code, let me get it posted in the next day. If you need more help after that let me know. I'm not interested in wasting anyone's time, especially mine.

- KVRAF
- 2474 posts since 4 Sep, 2006, from 127.0.0.1

why don't you implement it into a small working demo? command line app is fine

i wanna see how much it can compress a bunch of files compared to .zip or so

i wanna see how much it can compress a bunch of files compared to .zip or so

It doesn't matter how it sounds..

..as long as it has BASS and it's LOUD!

irc.freenode.net >>> #kvr

..as long as it has BASS and it's LOUD!

irc.freenode.net >>> #kvr

- KVRist
- 298 posts since 6 Aug, 2005, from England

antto wrote:why don't you implement it into a small working demo? command line app is fine

i wanna see how much it can compress a bunch of files compared to .zip or so

Yes, and how fast is it? I mean perhaps it takes a half infinity to complete!

- KVRist
- 307 posts since 29 Oct, 2016

Decoding is actually quite fast considering what it can do... it has real applications, more to the archival, long distance transmission and syncronization.. but there are other more subtle and powerful uses. After all, the only words ever worth saying are... I love you.

I'll check back later... please analyze fully.. I had to hash this out between chores... I used a recursive function to elaborate and example, but the final function is linear for the sake of scale.. you can easily play with the internal stats in a simplified way with that dice rolling website link I provided in an earlier post.. use 8 tetrahedron and you will see why.. chaos has difficulty branching out here, the linear encoding is too strong.. the only way it can go on beyond a few levels.. is if it were DESIGNED. You are welcome to provide counter-proof.. may the real challenges begin.. prove this impossible while keeping the working principle intact.. is this mind bending folly beyond comprehension? or is there something wonderful here to celebrate in great rejoice together?

you decide.

- Code: Select all

FUNCTION MAIN()

BLOCKNUM = -1;

BLOCK()

END FUNCTION

FUNCTION BLOCK()

BLOCKNUM = BLOCKNUM + 1 % 256

DESCRAMBLE_BLOCK() // INVERSE OF ENCODER SCRAMBLE

IF BLOCKNUM = 0

BIT = 0

INCREMENTOR--

IF INCREMENTOR = 0

SAVE_BITSTREAM_AND_EXIT()

END IF

STREAM[INCREMENTOR] = BIT

END IF

BLOCKTYPE = GETBLOCKTYPE()

SECONDBIT:

IF BLOCKTYPE = BB_INCREMENT THEN BLOCK()

IF BLOCKTYPE = BB_UNKNOWN THEN

IF IS_LAST_UNKNOWN_COMBO() GOTO RETURNCODE

NEXT_UNKOWN_COMBO()

BLOCK()

END IF

IF BLOCKTYPE = BB_RETURN THEN GOTO RETURNCODE

RETURNCODE:

IF BLOCKNUM = 0 AND BIT = 0

BIT = 1

GOTO SECONDBIT

END IF

BLOCKNUM = BLOCKNUM + 255 % 256

END FUNCTION

FUNCTION GETBLOCKTYPE()

RETTYPE = BB_INCREMENT

FOR B = 1 TO 8

HIGHNEIGHBOR = SEEDEDRAND(GET_HIGHPOSITION())

LOWNEIGHBOR = SEEDEDRAND(GET_LOWPOSITION())

IF HIGHNEIGHBOR = 1

IF LOWNEIGHBOR = 0

RETTYPE = BB_RETURN

END IF

ELSE

IF LOWNEIGHBOR = 1

IF RETTYPE <> BB_RETURN THEN RETTYPE = BB_UNKNOWN

END IF

END IF

NEXT B

RETURN RETTYPE

END FUNCTION

I'll check back later... please analyze fully.. I had to hash this out between chores... I used a recursive function to elaborate and example, but the final function is linear for the sake of scale.. you can easily play with the internal stats in a simplified way with that dice rolling website link I provided in an earlier post.. use 8 tetrahedron and you will see why.. chaos has difficulty branching out here, the linear encoding is too strong.. the only way it can go on beyond a few levels.. is if it were DESIGNED. You are welcome to provide counter-proof.. may the real challenges begin.. prove this impossible while keeping the working principle intact.. is this mind bending folly beyond comprehension? or is there something wonderful here to celebrate in great rejoice together?

you decide.