Difference between revisions of "Talk:Canonical Huffman code"
(→I fondness my son! and you?: new section) |
m (Reverted edits by 176.123.5.30 (talk) to last revision by Tepples) |
||
| Line 3: | Line 3: | ||
A [http://www.canonical.com/ Canonical] Huffman code as opposed to a [http://www.redhat.com/ Red Hat] [[wikipedia:Range encoding|range code]]? What about a Gentoo Foundation [[wikipedia:Elias gamma coding|gamma code]], given the [[wikipedia:Zipf's law|power law distribution]] of word frequencies? --[[Special:Contributions/98.226.71.46|98.226.71.46]] 20:47, 25 April 2012 (MST) | A [http://www.canonical.com/ Canonical] Huffman code as opposed to a [http://www.redhat.com/ Red Hat] [[wikipedia:Range encoding|range code]]? What about a Gentoo Foundation [[wikipedia:Elias gamma coding|gamma code]], given the [[wikipedia:Zipf's law|power law distribution]] of word frequencies? --[[Special:Contributions/98.226.71.46|98.226.71.46]] 20:47, 25 April 2012 (MST) | ||
:Not that Canonical, and not [[nookipedia:Universal Codes|that universal code]] either. I've used gamma codes before for run-lengths in one of my NES-based image codecs. But in the case of [[Huffword]], replacing the table of counts per length with a fixed [[wikipedia:Universal code (data compression)|universal code]] might save a little space in the decoder, but the difference between the size of a generic Exp-Golomb decoder (of which gamma is a special case) and the size of the first half of a CH decoder is probably minuscule. Most of the space in a CH decoder model is in the table from symbols to indices, and a universal code won't save any on that. In fact, Huffword uses two layers of CH: one for words and one for characters in the dictionary. --[[User:Tepples|Tepples]] 20:59, 25 April 2012 (MST) | :Not that Canonical, and not [[nookipedia:Universal Codes|that universal code]] either. I've used gamma codes before for run-lengths in one of my NES-based image codecs. But in the case of [[Huffword]], replacing the table of counts per length with a fixed [[wikipedia:Universal code (data compression)|universal code]] might save a little space in the decoder, but the difference between the size of a generic Exp-Golomb decoder (of which gamma is a special case) and the size of the first half of a CH decoder is probably minuscule. Most of the space in a CH decoder model is in the table from symbols to indices, and a universal code won't save any on that. In fact, Huffword uses two layers of CH: one for words and one for characters in the dictionary. --[[User:Tepples|Tepples]] 20:59, 25 April 2012 (MST) | ||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
Revision as of 12:02, 6 November 2012
Distro + entropy code
A Canonical Huffman code as opposed to a Red Hat range code? What about a Gentoo Foundation gamma code, given the power law distribution of word frequencies? --98.226.71.46 20:47, 25 April 2012 (MST)
- Not that Canonical, and not that universal code either. I've used gamma codes before for run-lengths in one of my NES-based image codecs. But in the case of Huffword, replacing the table of counts per length with a fixed universal code might save a little space in the decoder, but the difference between the size of a generic Exp-Golomb decoder (of which gamma is a special case) and the size of the first half of a CH decoder is probably minuscule. Most of the space in a CH decoder model is in the table from symbols to indices, and a universal code won't save any on that. In fact, Huffword uses two layers of CH: one for words and one for characters in the dictionary. --Tepples 20:59, 25 April 2012 (MST)
