9 ms·

The $5000 Compression Challenge (2001)

• permo-w 2y ago
  this sounds like a Nigerian Prince scammer set-up
• andrei-akopian 2y ago
  I though he would try to net profit through probability by requesting to regenerate the file and hope to get a compressible one in at least 5000/100=50 times. (Though I don't think that would work.)
• its-summertime 2y ago
  > I think that I did not make a mistake except to believe that you truly intended to attempt to compress the data I was sending you. Weird phrase to hear from a digital carnival scam artist.
• Supermancho 2y ago
  > It's not my fault that a file system uses up more space storing the same amount of data in two files rather than a single file. It's not interesting to see people play word games with each other in the HN comments, so why is it interesting to see this kind of disingenuous behavior? Trolls have always existed. I don't get what's interesting about it.
  • recursive 2y ago
    The act of offering a cash prize to prove you wrong kind of makes you look like a jerk. It's assumed that you will use every loop hole at your disposal. Seeing the situation reversed so elegantly makes me root for the challenger.
  • ncruces 2y ago
    Who's the bigger troll? Putting up the initial challenge, especially with the accompanying commentary, is just as much trolling as that.
  • stavros 2y ago
    As Patrick said, if he had gotten a 1000-byte file and sent a 999-byte file/decompressor file back, nobody would have counted the inode data as a part of the solution. Why count it now?
    • Supermancho 2y ago
      Because the solution specifically was for 1 file submitted, 2 files back (compressed and decompressor). This topic ise the next level trolling that went on. The summary and ng faw, explained why these file metagames aren't useful. They obscure the lack of a compression strategy (eg if the inode equivalent was 2ft of tape) by nature of dispersing information into the fs.
      • stavros 2y ago
        > Because the solution specifically was for 1 file submitted, 2 files back (compressed and decompressor). Patrick: I meant can I send you a decompressor and several compressed files whose total file size is less than the original uncompressed file and from which I can regenerate the original uncompressed file Mike: Sure.
        • sfink 2y ago
          Yep, Mike lost right there. Understandable, but still a loss.
  • Timwi 2y ago
    I do agree that this last sentence (the one you quoted) is very unfortunate and doesn't match the wit of the rest. A better closing remark might have been something on the lines of, “I never claimed to have performed any compression. I only claimed to have met the terms of the challenge. I asked if I can send multiple files and the response was ‘sure’. I provided the files; they meet the total file size criterion; and the script correctly reconstructs the original files.”
• fxtentacle 2y ago
  This guy clearly failed because he didn't actually do any compression, he just ab-used the filesystem to store parts of the data and then tried to argue that metadata was not data... But FYI someone else actually managed to compress that exact same data: https://jasp.net/tjnn/2018/1.xhtml https://jasp.net/tjnn/2018/1.xhtml
  • recursive 2y ago
    That argument was made, and addressed in the emails. How are you defining compression? Actual compassion doesn't seem to have been a requirement in the challenge.
  • maxmcd 2y ago
    Is there any more information about this solution?
  • stavros 2y ago
    If Mike didn't want multiple files, he should have said no to multiple files. The fact that he wanted $100 per try shows that he just got outhustled at his own hustle. He should have been more particular about the rules, and upheld the ones he himself set.
    • PaulHoule 2y ago
      Should have charged $100 a file.
  • Timwi 2y ago
    He clearly failed at doing any actual compression, but he did not fail at the challenge. He satisfied every single condition. He obviously knows that. He knows exactly what compression is and that his solution is not it. He showed (successfully) that meeting the challenge as it was worded did not require compression, which the setter of the challenge didn't realize.
  • elahieh 2y ago
    I'm rather skeptical of this claim that the data was compressed in 2018 because there is no further information, apart from a hash value given. If it's a true claim they must have identified some "non-random" aspect of the original data, and then they could have given more info.
• johnfn 2y ago
  This is hilarious, but Mike’s behavior boils my blood. To switch the rules when fairly beaten is just so scummy! Of course Patrick’s solution occurred to me immediately once he started talking about splitting up the file. :) Then I got to wondering if it would be possible to compress a large enough file and save a few bytes, in the spirit of what Mike actually wanted. For instance, if you tried encrypting with a bunch of random keys, you’ll find some such that the result ends with n 0s (say), so then your result could be something like encrypted + key + n. Typically you’d expect to find that the length of the encryption key would be roughly the length of the number of 0s, so you wouldn’t actually net any savings. But I think if you searched long enough, you might “get lucky” and find a key that generated more 0s then the length of the key, so you could theoretically win the challenge. Of course you’d have to somehow embed a program which could decrypt and reassemble everything in a tiny amount of space, but it still doesn’t seem impossible like Mike seems to suggest. Perhaps just requires an intractable amount of computing power. :) I’m not sure if any of that made sense. I think I’m using the wrong terms for things.
  • crazygringo 2y ago
    I remember reading from a previous thread how yes you can do something like that (or lots of other techniques) but they will only work on a small percentage of files. That sometimes the smallest decompressor (including the key, in your example) will result in overall less space, but usually it will result in more (because the smallest key that generates 10 zeros happens to be 14 digits long, etc.). And so ultimately the more interesting question becomes about those probabilities, and therefore what is the right entry price for the bet to be even?
• deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
• ccleve 2y ago
  I wonder if it would have been possible to win the challenge legitimately? If a randomly-generated file happened to contain some redundancy through sheer chance, you could hand-craft a compressor to take advantage of it. This compressor would not work in general for random data, but it could work for this one particular case. It's a bet worth taking, because the payoff, 50:1 ($5,000 to $100), is pretty good. Play the game 50 times and you might get a file you could compress. The challenge, then, would be for the person offering the bet to generate a really random file that contained no such redundancy. That might not be easy.
  • dmurray 2y ago
    I think you can make some argument about why this isn't possible at 50:1 odds. A plausible "decompressor" is at least, say, 30 or 100 bytes, so the random file needs to have 30 bytes less entropy than you expected, which happens with probability X where X << 1/50. Sum over the whole domain of reasonable decompressors, and you still don't get there. This argument could do with more rigor, but I think it's correct. Give me 100 million to 1 odds, though, and I'll take my chances trying to brute force a compressor.
    • lambdaone 2y ago
      This is actually an extremely interesting question. 'Weak' files that are more easily compressable than others certainly exist, but with low probability. For example, the all-zeros file is a member of the set of all random 3 megabyte files, and it would certainly be possible to compress that, if by great good fortune you were lucky enough to receive it - albeit something that is unlikely to ever happen in the possible lifetime of the universe, given current physical theories. Is it possible to quantify this idea of a 'weak' file more accurately?
      • ccleve 2y ago
        I know very little about this, but a little googling suggests that the measure you're looking for is entropy, which has a mathematical definition: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entropy_(information_theory) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entropy_(information_theory)
• hyperpape 2y ago
  It’s amazing that this commentary on the value of prediction markets was written in 2001.
• benchmarkist 2y ago
  Take random bytes from /dev/urandom, encrypt it. There is no way any compressor can reduce the size of that file. I'm pretty sure there is no way the second player can win this game. Actually, the encryption part isn't even necessary. There is no compressor that can reduce the size of a random stream of bytes.
  • cortesoft 2y ago
    There is no general purpose compressor that can achieve compression on all random streams of bytes... but there is a possibility to compress a specific random stream of bytes, if you get lucky
    • lambdaone 2y ago
      Absolutely! Can this probability be quantified?
      • benchmarkist 2y ago
        You'd have to define what you mean by luck which would be equivalent to choosing some pattern that your compressor can recognize in a random stream of bytes and then computing the probability that pattern appeared in some random byte sequence. It's not a winnable game in any practical sense because whatever compressor you choose the probability of getting a sequence from your opponent that will conform to the patterns recognizable by your compressor is essentially 0.
  • Retric 2y ago
    But you don’t need to compress every possible file to make playing such a game a good idea. Suppose if you shave 1 bit off of a sample bit stream you win and you lose if that fails. Your compressor looks at the first 2 bits and if it starts 11 it starts with 1 and otherwise it starts 0 then the bit stream. Now you have a 1 in 4 chance to compress a random string by 1 bit and. A 3 in 4 chance of making it longer by 1 bit. It’s ultimately not about compression but what odds are worth it.
  • quuxplusone 2y ago
• omoikane 2y ago
  The original email thread was from 2001, and it gets posted to HN periodically: https://news.ycombinator.com/from?site=patrickcraig.co.uk https://news.ycombinator.com/from?site=patrickcraig.co.uk For another compression challenge that is still ongoing, try "500000€ Prize for Compressing Human Knowledge" (also known as "Hutter Prize"): http://prize.hutter1.net/ http://prize.hutter1.net/ https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37502329 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37502329 - Hutter Prize for compressing human knowledge (2023-09-13, 215 comments)
  • vlovich123 2y ago
    I have a fundamental problem with the Hutter prize stating that intelligence is related to compression & then sponsoring a prize for lossless compression. Intelligence is related to lossy compression. Lossless is mainly a mechanistic act.
    • echoangle 2y ago
      Isn’t the intelligence shown by compressing lossless the scheme you use? Applying the algorithm is the easy part, the proof of intelligence is inventing the algorithm which compresses.
      • AlotOfReading 2y ago
        Hutter put up the prize as a way of getting people to approximate his AIXI algorithm, which he already considers to be the pinnacle of artificially intelligence. That's also why lossy compression isn't interesting. It'd be an approximation of an approximation and not particularly useful for hutter's purpose.
        • chriswarbo 2y ago
          > his AIXI algorithm, which he already considers to be the pinnacle of artificially intelligence This paper from Hutter in 2015 https://arxiv.org/abs/1510.04931 https://arxiv.org/abs/1510.04931 considers AIXI to be "subjective", since the choice of Universal Turing Machine is left unspecified: > We show that Legg-Hutter intelligence and thus balanced Pareto optimality is entirely subjective, and that every policy is Pareto optimal in the class of all computable environments. This undermines all existing optimality properties for AIXI. While it may still serve as a gold standard for AI, our results imply that AIXI is a relative theory, dependent on the choice of the UTM.
• misiek08 2y ago
  I read „decompressor and compressed file”, not „fileS”. There is only one person correct here
  • stavros 2y ago
    You should read the rest of the thread.
  • optimalsolver 2y ago
    He asks Mike if he can send multiple files. Mike says "sure".
• moonchild 2y ago
  suppose the data were generated by a csprng with 256 bits of state. then in fact there are just slightly more than 256 bits of entropy there (prng state plus the length of the generated file). only, you'd have a snail's chance in hell of actually finding that seed
  • echoangle 2y ago
    If he really wanted to make sure he kept the money, he could just use a hardware RNG. I don’t know how common they were in 2001 but you could probably even generate some practically unpredictable random numbers using radio noise.
    • tugu77 2y ago
      Mike thanked random.org for the data. It's exactly what they are doing.
• stavros 2y ago
  Sorry, if you're trying to hustle people by xstging $100 per try, don't catch the sleight of hand in the "multiple files" question, and accept, you were beaten at your own game, fair and square.
  • l33t7332273 2y ago
    I feel like if the FAQ requires not using filename shenanigans then the slight of hand was illegal the whole way.
    • spott 2y ago
      The FAQ was not part of the challenge statement. It was part of the newsgroup I believe.
    • stavros 2y ago
      He didn't use filenames, he used files, and if that were illegal, Mike shouldn't have accepted it.
      • anamexis 2y ago
        He does use the filenames. If you change the filenames randomly (such that the files sort differently), it does not work.
        • Dylan16807 2y ago
          > such that the files sort differently But if you change them without making them sort differently, everything is fine. He depends on the order, not the filenames. You could even remove the filenames entirely, as long as you patch the code to account for such a strange environment.
          • mafuy 2y ago
            Not really a good point. If the order of bytes does not matter, then I can compress any file of your liking to O(log n) size :P
• PaulKeeble 2y ago
  I would not have accepted multiple files nor scripting. Scripts offers up the entire contents of the linux operating system and this could allow you to use operating system files as partial data. To really test compression/decompression the rules need to be a lot tighter. The challenge was met and beat because the criteria was bad. It leaves open a number of dishonest approaches. The decompression program needs to be constrained to itself and the singular file to decompress and can not utilise anything other than basic operating system functions for the purpose of reading and writing the constrained files. Any bytes the program accesses otherwise can be used as part of the total count. It's very hard to constrain this without some form of chest being possiblemespecially if you have some years to set it up.
  • echoangle 2y ago
    > Scripts offers up the entire contents of the linux operating system and this could allow you to use operating system files as partial data. I also thought about this, but when thinking more about the argument by the challenge creator, I understood that the data in the OS doesn’t help you. If you’re given a file with 100 bits, there are 2^100 possibilities. If you want to compress to 99 bits, there are only 2^99 possible compressed outputs. So when generating and trying to compress every 100 bit file, you’re not going to be able to compress half of them. The external data doesn’t help you unless you get to modify it after receiving the file to compress. If you can get patched merged into the Linux kernel, you could use the data, but if the data is fixed, you can’t reference the data with less data than the original file (for some cases atleast). Edit: actually, when thinking about it: you could actually use the OS as another few bits of out of band information you get for free, which makes it possible again. If you have 8 different OS to choose from, you could use their differences to compress any file. At least theoretically, the 3 bits you gain practically probably aren’t enough to make a difference.
    • cozzyd 2y ago
      My decompressor: curl ftp://path/to/original.dat
    • PaulKeeble 2y ago
• Lapalux 2y ago
  [flagged]
  • Lapalux 2y ago
    I should add the whole exchange is worth a read, but it’s enhanced by a little bit of background knowledge like above…
• echoangle 2y ago
  I didn’t quite get the method used to „compress“ the data from the article, maybe this rephrasing helps someone: You basically split the file every time you encounter a specific character, and your compressor just combines all files it finds with the character you split by. If you split at every „X“ Char which might occur 1000 times in the file, the compressor only needs a small script which joins all files and puts an „X“ between them, which is less than 1000 bytes. The „trick“ is storing the location of the Xs you removed in the file sizes of the individual files.
  • oezi 2y ago
    My take was that the information is stored in the ordering of the files. The decompressor doesn't care about the file size of each file, right?
    • Dylan16807 2y ago
      Both are needed. If you want to transmit this solution from one computer to another you need to store the size of each file (or insert a fancy delimiter that takes even more space).
  • mjevans 2y ago
    Almost. The trick is the missing character is static, in the 'decompressor'. It's inserted between every segment which was trimmed to end where that character existed in the original.dat file. The numbers at the end of each segment file correspond to the segment number, as bourne shells increment numbers. It does not handle errors or validate the output. It does fulfill the discussed terms of the challenge, which fail to include any reference to an external set of rules.
• avmich 2y ago
  I particularly like this: > It's not my fault that a file system uses up more space storing the same amount of data in two files rather than a single file.
• teo_zero 2y ago
  Mike supports $SPORT team the Compressors. He's so sure they are unbeatable that he accepts 50:1 bets against them. Patrick bets 100$ that they won't win this year's championship; Mike accepts. Later, the Compressors announce financial troubles and can't pay the fee to enter the championship, which is then won by another team. Patrick reclaims his 5000$. Mike refuses to pay saying that the Compressors have not been beaten, and the championship result does not disprove his claim that the Compressors are unbeatable, which was the spirit of the bet since the beginning. Mike offers to refund the 100$. Patrick holds that the terms of the bet were met and he deserves the 5000$.
  • optimalsolver 2y ago
    >$SPORT team the Compressors They were lossless last season. :-D
  • l33t7332273 2y ago
    And the FAQ for the bet said that if a team can’t afford to enter the playoffs then the bet is off.
    • Dylan16807 2y ago
      1. Which line in the FAQ are you making an analogy to? 2. A FAQ for the newsgroup is not automatically part of the rules for the challenge. 3. If the entire FAQ is treated as rules text, then the rules directly say you cannot win, and that's not an acceptable way to do rules.
      • l33t7332273 2y ago
        >Which line in the FAQ are you making an analogy to? The line about filename shenanigans being disallowed. >A FAQ for the newsgroup is not automatically part of the rules for the challenge. I think it’s completely clear that this FAQ was about the challenge.
        • Dylan16807 2y ago
• nojvek 2y ago
  I’d take this bet. > With this offer, you can tune your algorithm to my data. One can generate a 1GB file or 10GB file. It is highly likely that there is some form of a repeatable pattern in there to shave off 50-100 bytes by sliding window search. Then the decompressor is essentially - at this index, expand this pattern. The compressed file excludes the range of pattern. One may not always get such a pattern, but on multiple tries it’s very feasible. Payout just needs one win in 50 tries. You could generate a 100GB file. The bigger the file the higher the chance of repeating pattern. The challenge is won if compressed_file + decompressor is less one byte than original file. One could have a self executing decompressor to save some file overhead bytes.
  • Jerrrry 2y ago
    good compression = pattern eventually maximum compression = indelineable from random data
  • crazygringo 2y ago
    As a general principle, absolutely. In practice, I wonder what size of file we're talking about that would result in net compression on random data 50% of the time? I have no intuition whether it's 1 GB, 1 TB, 1 PB, or beyond.
    • SideQuark 2y ago
      Nope. As your file gets longer so does the data needed to specify where the repeats are. See my other estimate in this thread. It fails spectacularly.
  • SideQuark 2y ago
    Your idea fails pretty easily. Simply do the math, and you’ll find your idea won’t work. One argument: if your method worked, then we could compress nearly any file. This violates the pigeonhole principle. Another example: for a 4GB file you’d need roughly a 4 byte integer to specify where the repeat started and where the second was, for 8 bytes. Then you need a length byte. Now you need a repeated 10+ bytes sequence to make this compress anything. There are 256^10=2^80 possible such 10 bytes sequence sequences, and only ~2^32 of them in a 4 gb file. So the odds of a repeated are around 1 in 2^50. Tweak methods and estimate as you wish. It fails.
• dang 2y ago
  Related. Others? The $5000 Compression Challenge - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9163782 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9163782 - March 2015 (168 comments) The $5000 Compression Challenge - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5025211 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5025211 - Jan 2013 (61 comments) The $5000 Compression Challenge - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4616704 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4616704 - Oct 2012 (119 comments)
• trod1234 2y ago
  This gets reposted quite often. The crux of the ongoing debate over the post has to do with the ambiguity of the stated requirements. For there to be any rational discussion, you need to have proper unique definitions for what is being communicated. Without a definition (identity) no system of truth seeking will provide a definitive truth. Most notably, "compression" has many different meanings currently in practical use. For example many people use the word compression and simply mean that the uncompressed size is more than the compressed size; lossy vs lossless doesn't matter when its good enough, all that matters is its been reduced, and an example of that might be H264 video. Other more rigorous individuals will use it to mean entropy encoding, which has a strict definition, part of which is lossless, and in these cases they often view Shannon's theorems as gospel, and at that point they often stop thinking and may not try to sharpen their teeth on a seemingly impossible task. These theorems are often very nuanced, with the bounds very theoretical or still undiscovered, though still seemingly correct. When someone is told something is impossible, they don't fully apply themselves to try to find a solution. Its a worn path that leads nowhere, or so they imagine. This mindset of learned helplessness prevents a nuanced intuitive understanding of such problems and any advances stagnate. People take the impossibility at face value, and overgeneralize it (without that nuanced understanding), this is fallacy and it can be very difficult to recognize it when there is no simple way to refute it on its face. Here is something to consider. Shannon's source coding theorem relies on the average uncertainty of probabilities as a measure of entropy (information). Some exploration is needed to understand what makes this true, or where it fails. It has been my experience that only a very few exceptional people ever attempt this process. The main question that jumps out in my mind since compression has been a thing I've been interested in for years; is, can an average entropy in statistics tell us accurately whether this is true in systems with probabilities and distributions that are a mix of mathematical chaos but also contain regularity within their domains? Statistics can be unwieldy beasts, and act as regular sources of misunderstanding and falsehood without a very rigorous approach. For a similar problem, people may find this article particularly relevant with regards to the chaotic 3-body problem in astrophysics. https://www.aanda.org/articles/aa/full_html/2024/09/aa49862-24/aa49862-24.html https://www.aanda.org/articles/aa/full_html/2024/09/aa49862-...
• Xcelerate 2y ago
  There's another interesting loophole to these general compression challenges. A universal Turing machine will necessarily compress some number of strings (despite the fact that almost all strings are incompressible). The set of compressible strings varies depending on the choice of UTM, and if your UTM if fixed, you're out of luck for random data. But if the UTM is unspecified, then there exist an infinite number of UTMs that will compress any specific string. To some extent, this resembles the approach of "hiding the data in the decompressor". But the key difference here is that you can make it less obvious by selecting a particular programming language capable of universal computation, and it is the choice of language that encodes the missing data. For example, suppose we have ~17k programming languages to choose from—the language selection itself encodes about 14 bits (log2(17000)) of information. If there are m bits of truly random data to compress and n choices of programming languages capable of universal computation, then as n/m approaches infinity, the probability of at least one language being capable of compressing an arbitrary string approaches 1. This ratio is likely unrealistically large for any amount of random data more than a few bits in length. There's also the additional caveat that we're assuming the set of compressible strings is algorithmically independent for each choice of UTM. This certainly isn't the case. The invariance theorem states that ∀x|K_U(x) - K_V(x)| < c for UTMs U and V, where K is Kolmogorov complexity and c is a constant that depends only on U and V. So in our case, c is effectively the size of the largest minimal transpiler between any two programming languages that we have to choose from, and I'd imagine c is quite small. Oh, and this all requires computing the Kolmogorov complexity of a string of random data. Which we can't, because that's uncomputable. Nevertheless it's an interesting thought experiment. I'm curious what the smallest value of m is such that we could realistically compress a random string of length 2^m given the available programming languages out there. Unfortunately, I imagine it's probably like 6 bits, and no one is going to give you an award for compressing 6 bits of random data.
  • tugu77 2y ago
    [dead]
  • _hark 2y ago
    The issue with the invariance theorem you point out always bugged me. Let s be an algorithmically random string relative to UTM A. Is it the case that there exists some pathological UTM S, such that K(s|S) (the Kolmogorov complexity of s relative to S) is arbitrarily small? I.e. the blank print statement of S produces s. And there always exists such an S for any s? Is there some way of defining a meta-complexity measure, the complexity of some UTM without a reference UTM? It seems intuitive that although some pathological UTM might exist that can "compress" whichever string you have, its construction appears very unnatural. Is there some way of formalizing this "naturalness"?
• teaearlgraycold 2y ago
  Don’t offer up a game you aren’t willing to lose. This should have had a mathematical definition and required a formal proof if Mike wanted to play it this way. By allowing for word play he made this a game of interpretation and not a true mathematical game.
• vunderba 2y ago
  Story time. In our Data Structures and Algorithms class during my undergrad, we had a similar challenge posed to us by an associate professor who was quite proud of the fact that it had never been beaten. The sophistication of my compression understanding at the time extended to lempel-ziv and huffman and well... that's about it. So I was like, “Okay, I’m not going to create the world’s best compression method on a whim.” So I started thinking: if I can’t compress the file, maybe I can just fetch it from somewhere else. The first thing I tried was writing a program that searches online by uploading the file onto a public FTP. From there, I could fetch it. Simple enough, right? Well, here’s the issue with that: there’s no guarantee I’d even have internet connectivity. That’s probably the first thing he’d block. So, he gives us the file. I think it was something like 10 MB, and when I looked through it, the entropy was high. Like, really high. Standard compression tools like 7Z or rar wanted NOTHING to do with it. Then I started thinking again. Maybe this guy’s running all the submissions back-to-back. He’s probably processing them in sequence because he’s got tons of entries coming in. So I thought: if I can’t download the file, maybe there's a chance it's already on the machine from somebody's previous simulation - I can find it somewhere on the hard drive. My program might not be a great decompression system, but you know what it is? A fantastic file search. So, I threw together a program that tree searched the entire disk with a simple checksum to verify I’d found the exact right file. If it matched, I’d just copy the file into the current directory and say, “I’m done.” - though if it found the file too quickly it would continue idling for a while so as to avoid suspicion. (I was also banking on the fact that someone else’s program might’ve run before mine, leaving the file lying around somewhere for me to grab.) Of course, I couldn’t make this look too obvious. I mean, imagine submitting a tiny C++ program claiming it could compress a 10 MB file into just a few kilobytes. He’d immediately know it was fake. So, I padded the compressed binary, adding a bunch of random hexadecimal and binary junk to bulk it up to around 5 MB. It was still phenomenal—better than any other method on the market for this type of file—but at least it seemed somewhat plausible. I mean, maybe I’d "discovered" some revolutionary new compression algorithm or something and smashed the weissman score. The contest went on for nearly a month, and the guy had a leaderboard tracking scores. Most people were hovering just slightly above standard compression rates—around 9 MB. Nothing groundbreaking, though. So, it’s a Friday night. I finish the program, pack it all up, and send it off. Then I go to bed. Needless to say, I woke up with a quite an excited response from my professor.
• Panzer04 2y ago
  I would have expected it to be possible to compress a single arbitrary random file with a small program. I would have thought an RNG could generate a file with some weakness that allows you to compress it, although said compressor would be worse at other inputs. Likewise this challenge would have been stronger if the requirement was to compress two provided arbitrary files :P
  • brody_hamer 2y ago
    I thought the same thing. Surely a random binary sequence will have some (small) repeating sequences? So as long as we can find them and (efficiently) mark their locations, we can have some small size reduction. Which is basically what he’s done here. He’s cheating by marking the location of the repeating sequence using unique files, rather than some other actually more efficient location system. This is a fun discussion! I think it helps to make compression feel more approachable for armchair enthusiasts.
  • bo1024 2y ago
    Absolutely, but here's the catch. You're designing the compression and decompression program based on the particular file. So the decompression program is really part of the data that's used to reconstruct the program. (For example you could replace a certain 1MB stretch of random data with a short magic word, but the decompressor would have to contain that 1MB so it knows what to insert when it sees the magic word.) That's why the original challenge measured the length of the data plus the decompressor program.
  • codazoda 2y ago
    I expected this too, so I asked an LLM to write a quick Go program that would tell me how many bytes repeated. I created a 1.44MB file from /dev/random and then ran it through the program. Here are the bytes that repeat the most. Top 10 repeated byte patterns and their counts: Bytes: 7eda16, Count: 3 Bytes: 65b1a4, Count: 3 Bytes: 71d745, Count: 3 Bytes: b72808, Count: 2 Bytes: 60e3ee, Count: 2 Bytes: 6e9152, Count: 2 Bytes: 26446b, Count: 2 Bytes: e4a05a, Count: 2 Bytes: 67f86a, Count: 2 Bytes: 92c487, Count: 2 Since the most common three byte sequence only appears 3 times, it seems like a non-starter. No longer byte sequences appeared more than twice either. I generated the random digits with this: dd if=/dev/random of=random.bin bs=1024 count=1440
• ball_of_lint 2y ago
  This strategy or something like it legitimately wins the challenge. The challenge (based on expected value) is not to find some compression scheme that will compress 100% or even 50% of files to less than their original size. Instead it's to find any (set of) compression schemes that will compress more than 1/50 = 2% of arbitrary random files to less than their original size. You can construct such a program essentially as they described by asking for a large file size and then searching for a valid decompression program within that file. With standard tools you can make some valid decompression program quite short, which will allow you a reasonable probability that it will appear within a large randomly-generated file. The cost that you pay for using a compression scheme like this is that where the compression scheme works you'll win some bytes, but in the more common case where it doesn't you'll lose some, even for the simple `cat $1 > original` default decompressor. Now, a clever contest creator might arbitrarily choose files that win against such decompressors that they can think of, but Mike appears to have not have done so.
  • LegionMammal978 2y ago
    The problem is what you do outside the file: even if it contains a working decompressor, you have to actually run that decompressor, which most likely requires specifying the byte offset and doing some other work to extract it. And then the decompressor needs to shorten the file even past the length of that byte offset and extractor, which can't be done with reasonable probability. There are some formats which search for a valid header anywhere in the file, but then they'd get tripped up by all the mostly-valid headers that don't actually yield a decompressed file.
  • GuB-42 2y ago
    For a truly random file, your 1/50 compression scheme that will make it smaller than the original will only make it smaller by 5 or 6 bits, maybe more if you are lucky, but it is an exponential, so realistically, you won't be able to save more than a byte or two, and you can't write that decompressor in two bytes. The only way to win is to reverse the random number generator used to create the contest file, or to exploit some bias if there is one. But if the file is generated properly, most likely with some CSPRNG, good luck going that route. The contest creator has to use a random file, any attempt to be clever will actually decrease entropy and may result in the contestant winning.
• piannucci 2y ago
  :shocked_pikachu: Renegadry aside, for those who are more interested in the Information Theory perspective on this: Kolmogorov complexity is a good teaching tool, but hardly used in engineering practice because it contains serious foot-guns. One example of defining K complexity(S, M) is the length of the shortest initial tape contents P for a given abstract machine M such that, when M is started on this tape, the machine halts with final tape contents P+S. Obviously, one must be very careful to define things like “initial state”, “input”, “halt”, and “length”, since not all universal machines look like Turing machines at first glance, and the alphabet size must either be consistent for all strings or else appear as an explicit log factor. Mike’s intuitive understanding was incorrect in two subtle ways: 1. Without specifying the abstract machine M, the K complexity of a string S is not meaningful. For instance, given any S, one may define an abstract machine with a single instruction that prints S, plus other instructions to make M Turing complete. That is, for any string S, there is an M_S such that complexity(S, M_S) = 1 bit. Alternatively, it would be possible to define an abstract machine M_FS that supports filesystem operations. Then the complexity using Patrick’s solution could be made well-defined by measuring the length of the concatenation of the decompressor P with a string describing the initial filesystem state. 2. Even without adversarial examples, and with a particular M specified, uniform random strings’ K complexity is only _tightly concentrated around_ the strings’ length plus a machine-dependent constant. As Patrick points out, for any given string length, some individual string exemplars may have much smaller K complexity; for instance, due to repetition.
  • l33t7332273 2y ago
    >uniform random strings’ K complexity is only _tightly concentrated around_ the strings’ length plus a machine-dependent constant What is the distribution of the complexity of a string? Is there some Chernof-like bound?
• samatman 2y ago
  I think Mike is correct. My reasoning by analogy follows. There's a game called Skedaddle, and a Usenet group, rec.players.skedaddle. A well-known player, Mike, offers a $5000 challenge for a feat, called the four-froot-hoot, which he believes is simply impossible to achieve. A fellow skedaddling enthusiast, Patrick, takes him up on the challenge, some baseline terms are negotiated, and Patrick presents his putative four-froot-hoot. Some might say it meet the terms of the challenge. Mike objects, he says "you're a rat, Pat! look at the FAQ, Jack, that's not even skedaddle" and indeed, the F.A.Q. of rec.players.skedaddle does indeed state in plain language, that it ain't even skedaddle so it can't be a four-froot-hoot. You make a bet in the club, you play by the club rules.
  • sfink 2y ago
    But the challenge wasn't for performing four-froot-hoot, the challenge was described in text and adhered to. Mike thought he was describing four-froot-hoot, but accidentally only made the challenge about four-froot. The club rules even described why four-froot was not an interesting challenge unless it were four-froot-hoot, which makes it doubly on Mike to issue the challenge for four-froot-hoot and not just four-froot, yet he flubbed it. The "it ain't even skedaddle" aspect is just incorrect. Compression is a term of art, and it is very general. Saying that "hiding" things in the filesystem is cheating is no different than saying that using the previous frame to reduce the size of the following frame in a video compressor is cheating. Yes, you do have to be careful of exactly what your inputs are, but there is great value in taking advantage of additional forms of input even if they might be initially unexpected. Besides, Mike's smugness deserves some comeuppance.
    • ultimafan 2y ago
      This is really how I see it too. If this spirit was really so important to the bet (and not just vaguely implied) it should have been stated clearly. Friendly ribbing over "you won by rules but not in spirit" is one thing when it's a free wager between buddies but not with real money on the line. Falling back on a position of spirit and intent trumping hard written rules in text in real money wagers basically guarantees that the banker has no real incentive to rule fairly on a win that can cost him money if he can get away with the loss of reputation- he can always weasel out of it one way or another by acting in bad faith and engaging in pedantry during the judging. No one would ever take up someone on a bet if they could turn around last second and say, well you didn't mind-read the additional rules and stipulations I'm adding on now after the fact to our original written agreement so in actuality you lost. Additionally Mike's behavior during the exchange makes him feel all the more untrustworthy. His condescension, playing the fool and intentionally misinterpreting the test to "win", remarks made that seem specifically placed to needle and aggravate Pat knowing there's no way to force him to pay up, and threats of accusations of fraud were a show of really poor character. At the least it would've been more of a class act (even if he never paid out) to admit that Pat outplayed him due to naivety and a self inflated sense of cleverness on Mike's part, to admit that he is not familiar with betting culture and got in over his head.
• evilotto 2y ago
  This is why we can't have nice things. Some volunteer puts in time maintaining something and makes a claim that is obviously correct and - most likely in jest - promises cash to anyone who shows it to be wrong. Then some rules lawyer decides that he's better than the unpaid volunteer and does his best to humiliate him, just for the lulz. Is it any surprise that volunteers rarely stick around for long? Nowadays lots of companies run bug bounty programs where if you find a bug and report it responsibly you can get real cash. This is a valuable service. And I'm positive that these programs get gobs of submissions from people trying to see if they can find a bug in the rules, rather than in the software. If the people vetting the submissions to such programs weren't getting paid for it, I'm sure they would quit in disgust.
  • ultimafan 2y ago
    The "unpaid" volunteer in question was raking in $100 per attempt for an arguably impossible task. That unquestionably moves the situation from a bounty/prize to a gambling house taking rigged bets and it's pretty clear by his language in the emails that he took pleasure in his position. How many fools did he part from their money before getting one upped by Patrick? And how did he act when he finally realized he wasn't as clever as he thought? I'd agree that if this was a free entry situation he'd be fully within his rights turning down trolls, rules lawyers, etc. for the same reasons you mentioned. Trying to scam a well intentioned but naive bounty post would be sad behavior. But this guy was clearly taking money on a position he never intended to pay out on and not losing any sleep over it.
    • evilotto 2y ago
      That's not what it was at all. Any time you say that something can't be done, you will attract people who say "I have found a way to do it!" Even more so if you have a proof that it can't be done. This phenomenon is far older than the internet; the term "morbus cyclometricus" suggests its origins in antiquity. The FAQ maintainer was not looking to profit off fools. They wanted to chase them off; after spending several pages explaining why the task is impossible it is tedious to explain to a crank (the term generally used for such people, as described by Underwood Dudley) that they are in fact wrong, the task is impossible, and here's why. It's easier to say "Pay me if you want to waste me time" and reasonably assume that no one will do it. It's similar in spirit to the James Randi challenge. You're not going to win it, because you're not going to prove that math or science is wrong. But the JREF had as its goal to expose the charlatans, and had the time and resources to devote to the task. A newsgroup FAQ maintainer has neither the time nor the resources. So they shouldn't have volunteered? Then you have no volunteers. Hooray for the internet. Now yes, every once in a great while someone will come along and legitimately do something that was claimed un-doable; the obvious case is George Dantzig. But that case also shows that any scientist or mathematician who can be shown an error in something thought impossible will be thrilled at the discovery, because that is new knowledge, which is the whole point. Poking a hole in the rules of the contest, finding a weasel way around them, is not something interesting at all.
• deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
• Uptrenda 2y ago
  Yeah, I'd strongly, strongly, in fact plead for people not to try this challenge. When it comes to 'compressing' random data: every single bit in random information is 'significant.' I am quite sure that the problem is logically meaningless, mathematically impossible, and a complete waste of effort. But more-so: if it weren't a waste of effort (it is) - I would still highly doubt any algorithm existed that was more efficient than brute force search. In this case -- the search for a function that solves the constraints is going to be like trying to brute force a cryptographic private key value. Simply because every 'bit' of entropy is valuable information. Now lets look at how modern compression actually: works. Images, movies, text-documents, audio files... there is fundamental --structure-- in all this data. In text it might be using only a certain character range, a certain lexical word list, and so on. There may be geometric information in images and movies that could be turned into code to drastically cut down file size. With audio -- you can sample it and discard what you don't need. And so on and so fourth. Structure. But how do you apply any of these methods to random data? There is no structure, you can't sample it, reduce it, simplify it... Every bit has meaning. So please, dear human thinking about compression of random data. It is an insane waste of intellectual effort. It's impossible. Don't do it. I made the same mistake (and setup vast amounts of HPC to work on algorithms.) COMPLETE. Waste of time.
• GrumpyNl 2y ago
  Is there a link to the file that he had to compress?
• theyapper 2y ago
  This compression challenge discussion raises fascinating questions about how we approach data representation. While I agree with the core information theory principles being cited, I wanted to share something relevant - US Patent 12,136,933 B2 just granted for a fascinating approach called "Kinetic Data Primers" (KDP). Let's step back and consider a different perspective that builds on some key mathematical principles: Every binary file, regardless of its content or randomness, can be viewed as representing one specific large number. This isn't controversial - it's just a different way of looking at the data. Many large numbers can be expressed more efficiently using mathematical notation (e.g., 10^100 is far more compact than writing out 1 followed by 100 zeros). Furthermore, this efficiency advantage tends to increase with larger numbers. These numerical conversions are perfectly lossless and reversible. We can go from binary to decimal and back without losing any information. This naturally leads to some interesting questions: What happens to our usual compression impossibility proofs when we consider perfect numerical transformations rather than traditional pattern matching? Could mathematical expressions capture patterns that aren't obvious in binary form? As numbers get larger, does the potential for more efficient mathematical representation increase? The KDP patent explores some of these ideas in depth. I'm not claiming this solves all compression challenges - but I think it highlights how fresh perspectives and mathematical approaches might reveal new ways of thinking about data representation. Would be curious to hear others' thoughts, especially from those with expertise in number theory or information theory. How do these mathematical properties interact with our traditional understanding of compression limits?