|
|
| Line 118: |
Line 118: |
| | ;; ///////////////////////////////////// | | ;; ///////////////////////////////////// |
| | | | |
| − | ;; I wrote a python program to count the number of characters in the output: the answer I got was 1606 (I deleted the extra spaces between | + | ;;;;;; (note from DT: see answers above code...) |
| − | ; the dance emoticons on the 10th line. I wrote another program to count the number of bytes in the data section. For this input, I got 818 | |
| − | ; bytes of memory storage. Storing 1606 characters would require 1606 bytes, but using this compression algorithm the data section of this | |
| − | ; program only requiers 808 bytes. Thus, for this input, the compression factor is 818 / 1616, about %50. | |
| − | ; In other words, the data is stored in half the space that would be required to include the full ouput. | |
| − | ;
| |
| − | ; The largest output we can store in 3 bytes is a one character emoticon printed 254 times. This data would require
| |
| − | ; 3 bytes to store: 254,3,'d'. Thus, the lowest possible value is 3 / (254 * 3) = 0.0039.
| |
| − | ; Regardless of how many lines of data there are, if they all adhere to these numbers the total compression ratio will always be 0.0039.
| |
| − | ; I believe that the length of the string is irrelevent. If say, the emoticon text (i.e. 'beer' or 'dance') is very long, say 254
| |
| − | ; characters, then we have the equation (2 + 252) / (254 * (252 + 2)) = .00393 (about the same). The numerator must increase because we have to spend
| |
| − | ; 254 bytes to store the 254 character emoticon. So I believe that .0039 is the best compression ratio we can get with this algorithm.
| |
| − | ; The number 254 is used because bytes can only store the numbers 0-254. The length of string is limited because the length must be stored
| |
| − | ; in the second byte of our encoding.
| |
| − | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
