Deathmatch: Jacob Barnett vs Nicolas Dupont

[Anonymous No.7140691]

Hey /sci/, which of these two geniuses and child prodigies is smarter? Which of the two will contribute more to humanity?


Barnett, of course, is famous for proving Einstein wrong and proving that God exists and Dupont is a highschooler tech genius and a mathematician who patented some of the most amazing technologies in recent years... like an algorithm capable of compressing 7GB movie file into "a mere kilobyte".

[Anonymous No.7140693]

>>7140691
neither will contribute anything

they both dumb as dog shit, so much so they don't realize it yet

[Anonymous No.7140697]

>>7140693
/thread

[Anonymous No.7140700]

>>7140693
>neither will contribute anything
This is true
>they both dumb as dog shit
This is not true. They're average at worst.

[Anonymous No.7140707]

>>7140700
>This is not true. They're average at worst.
i'll accept this if you agree the only reason they stand out is due to their dumb+rich parents taking their childish beliefs too far

[Anonymous No.7140717]

>>7140707

jesus christ are you salty or what

why can't you just accept that some kid is better at physics than you will ever be?

[Anonymous No.7140720]

>>7140717
i'll accept it when it happens m8

[Anonymous No.7140724]

>>7140717
>does calc 2 on television
>math and physics genius
What a time to be alive

[Anonymous No.7140725]

>>7140691
Who the fuck is Barnett?

[Anonymous No.7140726]

>>7140720

Trolling aside, it's pretty obvious these kids are way above average

It's kind of funny how it triggers everyone's insecurities when some kid beats people at the only thing they were ever good at

[Anonymous No.7140730]

>>7140726
What's more funny is that you project your own lack of knowledge of what Jacob claims to know onto others to satisfy your own insecurity of low intelligence.

[Anonymous No.7140731]

>>7140730

Now you're the one projecting

[Anonymous No.7140734]

>>7140726
dupont refers to microwaves as "wifi frequencies", assumes that since a 24bit RGB colorspace exists, that it's feasable to use 16 million colors multiplexed into a single fibre cable, not to mention, his invention was invented almost 4 decades ago, and has been in commercial use since well before he was born

he can't even google his ideas properly to see if they exist already, that's pretty poor for a 14 yo

[Anonymous No.7140738]

>>7140734

Nonetheless. Most 14-year-olds don't even know what those words mean. You can't judge them by the same standards as adults.

[Anonymous No.7140741]

>>7140726
>Trolling aside, it's pretty obvious these kids are way above average
They're above average retards.

Both are from well-off families (Dupont is probably one of the Dupont fortune heirs) and their parents pushed them too hard. I think that's the root cause of this madness.

[Anonymous No.7140742]

>>7140738
most in general? sure, but that's pretty basic for a kid interested in technology

[Anonymous No.7140744]

>>7140691
Tao

[Anonymous No.7140745]

<--- Dupont's inventions

http://www.cyborg.co

[Anonymous No.7140747]

>>7140738
If they intend to be in the world of professional adults, you're fucking right I'm gonna judge them by the same standards as adults

[Anonymous No.7140748]

>>7140742
also, being interested in technology doesn't automatically make anyone a genius

[Anonymous No.7140750]

>>7140745
Someone
Please get him to work on the next Bond script.

[Anonymous No.7140751]

>>7140742

I don't know what sort of kids your grew up around, but I NEVER once as a 14-year-old saw anyone who would have known half that shit, and I moved twice around that time.

Once again /sci/ is full of condescending assholes who say everything they know is trivial and everything they don't is autism.

>>7140741

They're still better at what they do than the vast majority of normal people.

[Anonymous No.7140755]

>>7140738
>moving the goalposts

retard

[None !ELBOWS6FNQ No.7140756]

>>7140744
if you mean Terry then /thread * a billion

Tao destroyed these guys at their age and he's actually now one of the best mathematicians in the world

[Anonymous No.7140759]

>>7140691
Is this the faggot with the iphone apps and html tutorials?

[Anonymous No.7140760]

>>7140755

>i'm out of arguments

sperg

[Anonymous No.7140761]

>>7140751
>I don't know what sort of kids your grew up around, but I NEVER once as a 14-year-old saw anyone who would have known half that shit
this depends on quite a few factors (where you live, what kind of people you knew, how old you are...)

i agree the terms are above what most kids would know, but that's not saying much, and it's on par with any kid interested in computers/networking

[Anonymous No.7140763]

>>7140759
na, that's the other one, the dreams in code guy

this is the impossible compression/fibre cable that already exists guy

[Anonymous No.7140771]

>>7140751
i thought i was hot shit putting shortcuts of games onto a floppy when i was 10

does that mean i actually figured out the secret to putting big games onto small disks? no. it did not.

[Anonymous No.7140779]

>>7140745
>utilizing binary probabilities
>binary probabilities

does that even mean anything

[Anonymous No.7140784]

>Introducing Shadow, the world’s most efficient compression algorithm. Utilizing binary probabilities, Shadow is able to compress data in an unprecedented manner. Shadow is able to compress a 7 gigabyte movie into a mere kilobyte.
as far as i can tell all of these "inventions" rely on using the same stupid idea of using the rgb colorspace as a set of aliases for raw data

[Anonymous No.7140789]

>>7140779
>flip a coin
>binary probability
Unless I'm a total retard this looks like bs

[Anonymous No.7140793]

<--- his multiplexing patent. how can he be awarded something like that when it's old tech?

[Anonymous No.7140796]

>>7140793
I have invented a system that uses 16.8 million colours.

kek what a loser

[Anonymous No.7140798]

>>7140730
>>7140726
Burn


Btw who are those kids?

[Anonymous No.7140802]

>>7140751

I was designing nitrogen powered cars (ultrakek) when I was 8, does that make me smarter than him?

[Anonymous No.7140804]

>>7140798
>Btw who are those kids?
you must be 'wet-behind-the-ears' newfag if you haven't heard of either of them.

[Anonymous No.7140806]

>>7140784
>Shadow is able to compress a 7 gigabyte movie into a mere kilobyte.
Barnett proves Einstein wrong, Dupont proves Kolmogorov and Shannon wrong.

topkek

[Anonymous No.7140808]

>>7140691

>Proving God exists

Ok m8

[Anonymous No.7140811]

>>7140806
>proves
my sides have left the building

[Anonymous No.7140812]

>>7140751

I knew all of that shit when I was 14 and I wasn't retarded enough to say I could compress 7GB into 1KB. I was already programming intermediate shit in Python and C++ and committing to FOSS Github projects for Linux. Like, for fucks sake. These kids are actually retarded.

[Anonymous No.7140813]

>>7140691
I was never smart but when I was 3 years old I beat Bobby Fisher in game of chess

[Anonymous No.7140817]

>>7140812

Good for you.

>These kids are actually retarded.

I dunno about Dupont, but Barnett kind of is. Just makes it more impressive imo.

[Anonymous No.7140818]

>>7140804
That's correct

Would you still like to answer my question, please?

[Anonymous No.7140821]

>>7140745
>Born in 1999, Nicolas Dupont is currently a high school student attending a prominent Preparatory School in Central Florida. This young prodigy, founder of Cyborg Industries, has unveiled his four groundbreaking innovations during his unique session at Techweek LA. These innovative inventions will launch the start of a new era in computing, and offer instantaneous data transfer, limitless data compression, and truly unbreakable encryption. Nicolas hosted his press conference at 2 PM, on November 21st, where he unveiled his revolutionary technologies for the first time ever. Solely developed by Nicolas, these innovations and inventions will provide multiple markets with a truly limitless technology.
Damn I feel kinda sorry for him. Assuming he didn't make that up himself.

[Anonymous No.7140822]

>>7140817

Dupont definitely is a shit for brains ass hole. Just the "7GB to 1KB" compression claim makes him a complete jackass. Not only that, but patenting the "new" tech he has "invented" is a JOKE.

[Anonymous No.7140823]

>>7140818

can you use google?

[Anonymous No.7140825]

>>7140822

tbh the whole business part of this sounds like something his parents must have pushed him into because they're so proud of their little genius

[Anonymous No.7140827]

>>7140823
Google will probably give me results which aren't only half true

[Anonymous No.7140829]

>>7140825
Well, he definitely told them, "MOM, DAD, I CAN COMPRESS 7GB TO 1KB!!! TELL THE WORLD!"

Still makes me hate the little ass hole.

[Anonymous No.7140832]

>>7140691
Barnett's actually a year older than Dupont! weird... Dupont looks like he's in his 30s.

[Anonymous No.7140845]

Okay I googled it.

Barnett is an autist, only living in his mathematical world with a natural damaged brain which gives him the ability to think logic but he can't even talk to his parents. I don't see why you hate this poor bastard

Dupont seems to be a french politican, well

[Anonymous No.7140849]

I wouldn't be surprised if his parents hired someone to work with him on 'inventions' in his free time. He seems to me like a male version of Kaylyn Slevin.

[Anonymous No.7140858]

>>7140789
/g/entooman here.
In 1999 or 2000, demoscene group farbrausch (sp?) came up with a directx engine (kkrieger) that worked by procedurally generating shapes, textures, and sounds. They used it to produce an 11 minute long demo that was 64kB in size at any resolution, "the .product". .kkrieger has been used by farbrausch ever since. Very nice engine, it was a God tier creative outlet for me when I was younger.

This demo at 4k resolution could easily be several gigabytes as an uncompressed video. If I have the demo loop a few times and boost the resolution I could get that same 64K demo to be an uncompressed video pushing into the terabyte range. The claim that "I'm compressed a terabyte long video into 64K" is valid, but really, REALLY stupid and backwards.

>Can it happen? Easily. Did he invent it? Fuck no. Does this mean it's useful? Nope. When is /a/ going to put an entire series of anime into a 12k zip and embed it in a PNG file? Never.

(Excuse the pic, for some reason I can't remove it from the image chooser)

[Anonymous No.7140862]

>>7140845
Also why do you circle jerk in this obvious troll thread?


Btw. Barnetts mother didn't know what his son is doing there and thought it might be a good idea to film his trivial Experiments and name them like "God doesn't exist, like my son clearly proves"

Most people thought his mother meant Barnetts physical experiments but actually the tried to say "Look how autistic my son is, god can't be real, otherwise he wouldn't gift me this child"

No, for real: his mother didn't understand a thing what her son is doing there and to get recognition she made some Big words up

[Anonymous No.7140874]

>>7140862

Who's circlejerking: the people saying these kids are dumb retards or the ones saying they're at least well above average?

[Anonymous No.7140875]

>>7140858
cute robot

[Anonymous No.7140877]

>>7140858
YES! I remember when it came out. I was in disbelief for few hours. It was magical.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y3n3c_8Nn2Y

This preview JPG image is bigger than the whole demo which lasts 11 min! I'm still amazed at the whole thing.

[Anonymous No.7140883]

>>7140874
All of you including me

Actually we enjoy those conversations

Or do you really hate the anon who doesn't agree with you? Do you really believe your own opinion? Don't you just disagree to keep the conversation going?

>inb4 get out psychologist

[Anonymous No.7140887]

>>7140877
(cont)
This is why I think that compression is directly related to intelligence. The video of that Farbrausch demo is tiny, yet if you download the 4K resolution video from YT, it will be huge and you will not be able to compress it much more without losing fidelity.

>50'000€ Prize for Compressing Human Knowledge
http://prize.hutter1.net

>Being able to compress well is closely related to intelligence as explained below. While intelligence is a slippery concept, file sizes are hard numbers. Wikipedia is an extensive snapshot of Human Knowledge. If you can compress the first 100MB of Wikipedia better than your predecessors, your (de)compressor likely has to be smart(er). The intention of this prize is to encourage development of intelligent compressors/programs as a path to AGI.

Stuff like this, demoscene & compression, is the reason why I love CS.

[Anonymous No.7140892]

>>7140812
>committing to FOSS Github projects for Linux

Come on, nigga. At 14?

[Anonymous No.7140897]

>>7140883
>Or do you really hate the anon who doesn't agree with you?
I make it a point to not get mad at 4chan.

>Do you really believe your own opinion?
Not always, sometimes I'm even persuaded to change it, but on 4chan it rarely pays to say this out loud.

>Don't you just disagree to keep the conversation going?
Yes, and to provoke, which was why I assumed a position I knew most of /sci/ would be opposed to.

[Anonymous No.7140915]

I want to see results.

[Anonymous No.7140919]

>>7140897
I am confused

You agreed with me

But by the time you agreed with me you proved me wrong in my thesis

You got me

[Anonymous No.7140920]

>>7140887
the way dupont describes his compression is nothing short of retarded though

comparing it to the likes of the demoscene is just silly

>>>/g/47097683

[Anonymous No.7140928]

>>7140745
>cyborg
lmao obvious troll site

[Anonymous No.7140949]

>>7140920
>the way dupont describes his compression is nothing short of retarded though
he's an idiot. everything he says is retarded. just like that Jacob guy.

[Anonymous No.7140956]

>>7140920
ps. for those who don't know what the fuck his text means, don't worry! it doesn't actually make sense even you are familiar with data compression

[Anonymous No.7140964]

>>7140877

How can I get into demo programming ? It doesn't seem to be a guide or even an introduction to demo programming out there.

[Anonymous No.7140991]

>>7140964
>How can I get into demo programming ? It doesn't seem to be a guide or even an introduction to demo programming out there.
Learn 3D programming first. Grab an intro book on OpenGL and start learning! From there, buy Abrash's book

http://www.amazon.com/Michael-Abrashs-Graphics-Programming-Special/dp/1576101746

and Foley's book (which is the bible of graphics programming):

http://www.amazon.com/Computer-Graphics-Principles-Practice-2nd/dp/0201848406

[Anonymous No.7140993]

>>7140964
there's plenty of videos out there describing the creations of demos, some tools and demos are open sourced, demos for older platforms are typically written so low level can simply disassembling them is far as you'll need to check those out

as for the basic concept, that's an easy one, it's just a program which plays a demo, showing off the programmers' skill through fancy effects, often timed to fancy music

[Anonymous No.7141010]

>>7140915
>Being the wireless version of spectrocable
IOW by doing on-the-fly adjustments of the wifi signal between 2.4 and 5.0 ghz you can tell the receiver that a certain pitch represents certain data patterns.

>A sine at 4.99999999 ghz represents 11111111, 4.99999998 ghz represents 11111110. That's 1 megabyte of potential data between the 4 and 5 ghz spectrum with only one bit needed to send each. Amplitude adjustments of 1% makes it 99 megabytes with a single sine wave. Change it so the top and bottom of the sine wave represent different bits and you get 198 megabytes with a single wave. What that means is if 5 ghz = 5 billion potential bits per second as a raw wave with a 1 & 0 approach, "stealth wireless" could be 4 ghz = ~ 8 terabytes of potential data per second without compression. That still doesn't come close to 10^55000.

Of course I just pulled this out my ass in 10 minutes. I had to google the math so it might not even be right.

[Anonymous No.7141017]

>>7140745

Ahahah his site is hilarious. Is just a teenager spouting non-sense to grab money from retards that cannot even understand why all he says is pure bullshit. BTW look a that perpetual movement machine I made yesterday, I'm only 5 years old but I am so smart, like 3 fiddy Einsteins, I also have somewhere near my playground a source of infinite energy that I made using only legos...

[Anonymous No.7141020]

>>7141010
why don't we just make a 1THz cpu? there, fast as fuck processing for everyone

i'm such a fucking genius, gib money plox

[Anonymous No.7141022]

>>7140745
>Binary Probabilities
KEK

[Anonymous No.7141032]

>>7141010
your working is sound, but far beyond practical/possible, factors like transmitter/receiver inaccuracies and noise will decimate your theoretical limits, and you'll be left with something more primitive then what we already have

[Anonymous No.7141039]

>>7141032
I realized that shortly into that post, but considering I'm making up something akin to "spectrocable" and "binary probability" I think I did pretty good.

[Anonymous No.7141043]

>>7140887

Yes, but. These highly compressed files didn't come out before the advent of GPUs with a lot of the functionality on-board the hardware. And they are highly optimized.

But still it is impressive. I talked to a compression algo-head once, it was trippy. He was banging on about any filetype being a fractal. If you have any product you can fractalize it down to a tiny compressed thing which can be reinflated to whatever it was. Or some shit.

[Anonymous No.7141045]

>>7141032
ps. i think part of the problem with what you describe and what dupont thinks is they neither seems to take into account the issues with using an analog medium

it's just assumed that for example, a receiver will always (or even at all) be able to differentiate a 4.99999998GHz from a 4.99999999GHz wave

to me it's evident he only has experience with digital systems, where the analog/physical complexities have been stripped away already

>>7141039
yea, i believe this is about what dupont is thinking, "just use more of the existing analog bandwidth", as if we aren't trying already or that it's easy to do

[Anonymous No.7141052]

>>7141045
for a rather simple example of why this is difficult, for those unsure

a very much scaled down version would be like if you were to play a music cd, normally with speakers (special ones if you may, as long as they're still just making plain audible sound), then having a receiver (microphone) record the sound /bit for bit as it was on the cd itself from that sound/
what was described here >>7141010 is a similar concept, only even more difficult

[Anonymous No.7141057]

My cousin could do calc 1 in the first grade.
His parents didn't ship him off to be the next Jacob Barnett.
He just went through an accelerated program, just like every other "prodigy".
Honestly, I'm pretty sure it had more to do with the way he was raised than how smart he is.

[Anonymous No.7141059]

>>7140745
this looks like fucking snake oil

[Anonymous No.7141065]

>>7141045
I'm not sure if it's "use more of the existing analog bandwidth" as it is "find more analog bandwidth on the existing signal" if that makes any sense. Specifically "if all existing analog bandwidth is saturated, make a new kind of analog bandwidth".

Which don't get me wrong it's a great idea given that you can often use existing hardware to do it, but there is no proof he's found or made that new bandwidth. It's like he's posting the results of a grand new discovery with the promise of delivery after payment. Which is so bullshit.

[Anonymous No.7141066]

>>7140915

>10^55000
you really expect me to believe this?

[Anonymous No.7141069]

What do you want to bet Dupont is jewish?

[Anonymous No.7141074]

>>7141069
>What do you want to bet Dupont is jewish?
million dollars says he's not. deal? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Du_Pont_family

[Anonymous No.7141081]

>>7141074
What about his mother's side?

He could be like Larry Page.

[Anonymous No.7141084]

>>7140858
>>7140877
There's a big difference 1kB and 64kB (63kB). 1kB is 8000 bits. 8000 0's or 1's.

[Anonymous No.7141087]

>>7140793
Patents are a big joke. You can pretty much patent anything if you throw enough money at it. Kid probably has rich parents who play along with the blatant trolling.

[Anonymous No.7141089]

>>7141065
if you're referring to using things like amplitude as well as frequency and the like, that is also what i'm referring to when saying "using more of the existing analog bandwidth"
by existing bandwidth i just mean say "4-5GHz", as being "1GHz of bandwidth", regardless of how you use any of those frequencies

and i don't mind being proven wrong, but i'm pretty sure any basic method of representing data in a waveform has been done already (multiple bits in amplitude? yep, multiple bits in frequency? yep, both at the same time? probably)

if his idea is really just like yours in that it's a case of packing more bits in by means of using a more exact frequency/amplitude, then he's failed hard, because that's what we've been doing since radio became a thing (if not earlier, idk)

like his spectrocable idea, he wants to use every color described by 24bit rgb (16 million) to multiplex a fiber cable
multiplexing multiple wavelengths (colors) through fiber symultaniously has been commonplace for a long time now, and this 'new idea' hits the same problems.. can the receiver differentiate between such minutely different wavelengths accurately? (not to mention, holy shit, you want each endpoint to have 16 million fucking transmitters and receivers per fibre cable?!) a theoretically upscaled version of something that exists isn't an invention, not without a novel way to make it actually work

[Anonymous No.7141093]

>>7140858
There is a big difference between generating shapes through compiled code and storing a movie.

[Anonymous No.7141095]

>>7141093
duponts own description, while wholly lacking in proper terminology, does clearly state that it is not a lossy or perceptual coding technique, which rules out any relation to procedurally generated content

[Anonymous No.7141113]

>>7141089
Think of it this way. We know about frequency. We know amplitude. We use them in very smart ways just like you said. I used them in a significantly less intelligent way in >>7141010.

But there might be more attributes to a signal. The first guy to realize he could vary the frequency and achieve better throughput must have been mind blown. The same with amplitude. If "stealth wireless" uses some attribute of a wave pattern we're not aware of yet, then it would be finding a new analog bandwidth instead of using more of the existing bandwidth.

For instance, say you have a directional antenna and a directional receiver. And for anecdotal reasons, radio waves rotate. If you could find a way to send/receive/measure the rotation, someone smarter than me would find a way to augment throughput with it. That's not using existing analog bandwidth, it's finding new analog bandwidth.

>inb4 radio waves don't rotate, it's just a hypothetical example.

[Anonymous No.7141122]

>>7141113
i see what you mean, and i don't know enough to say with certainty if all possible avenues have been checked

i would be prepared to eat my face if this kid did actually come up with something not previously considered though, based on everything he's got so far i'm confident my face will remain unscathed

[Anonymous No.7141130]

>>7141122
I couldn't agree with you more, anon.

[Anonymous No.7141135]

Details of his "compression" scheme: http://www.freepatentsonline.com/8941513.pdf

Shit is hilarious.

[Anonymous No.7141137]

>>7141113
wouldn't rotating radio waves be received at different 'rotations' based on the distance between transceivers?

i suppose the distance could be measured and compensated for.

a somewhat similar phenomenon is how light can be polarized, a recent/popular example of this being used to place more information in the same space is 3D film projection

the pictures for both eyes are projected to the same screen at the same time, and the glasses worn are oppositely polarized, along with the two projected images, which results in each eye only seeing the appropriate projected image, and not the other

no idea if this is used or even relevant to fiber communication, polarization is not something i know a great deal about

[Anonymous No.7141141]

>ITT /sci/ mocks things they don't understand

[Anonymous No.7141144]

>>7141141
welcome to humanity

[Anonymous No.7141145]

>>7141141

Hey Jacob is stupid compared to most Chinese students of his age.

[Anonymous No.7141146]

>>7140691
"proving god exists"
>But not before proving the ego exists making his argument innert

[Anonymous No.7141159]

>general public and media in charge of selecting child prodigies

[Anonymous No.7141163]

>>7140812
>12
>github
>python

underage b& detected

(yes, I know python is old, but it didn't have maymay levels of popularity until the last couple of years)

also I doubt you can gather the entire knowledge needed to really contribute to the kernel in less than 4 years or so, so that would mean he started looking at it at the age of 8, and would mean that he is fluent in C/C++ at the age of 8. Why do people say crap on 4chan to inflate their anonymous epeen? What for?

[Anonymous No.7141164]

>>7141145
>implying that not every Chinese student cheats their way through university

[Anonymous No.7141168]

>>7141163
>github
>launched 2008
>says he was 14
>if he was 14 in 2008 he'd be 21 now

as for python using that in 2008 is not unusual, i first tried it around that time, too

[Anonymous No.7141172]

>>7140717
It's the truth though

[Anonymous No.7141213]

>>7141135
FUCKING PAGES 28 AND 29.
I WAS RIGHT.

>>7141137
After some digging, I've come to believe that radio waves are basically a form of light. So no, they can't rotate. But they do have polarization, which I'm sure is already used in wifi.

[Anonymous No.7141227]

>>7141213
>I've come to believe that radio waves are basically a form of light
they're both electromagnetic waves

[Anonymous No.7141230]

>>7141135
that's the dumbest thing i've ever read

and it has jack fucking shit to do with color. in fact the color conversions are probably useless overhead. why the fuck is he talking about rgb

you know what though, this probably all exists because his parents want to be patent trolls. they dont ever actually intend to make any devices, they just want to sit on these patents so they can sue people and get dat cash money

[Anonymous No.7141236]

>>7141213
that text though

i could pick apart almost every sentence in it, errors and misunderstandings galore

[Anonymous No.7141244]

>>7141135
So he takes binary data (base2) and converts it to RGB (base256^3???) broadcasts it, a different computer receives it and then converts it back to binary data...

Am I reading this right?

[Anonymous No.7141246]

>>7141244
So it's a QR code?

[Anonymous No.7141248]

>>7141227
I keep thinking "If I can get the source to rotate fast enough and be oriented right wouldn't electromagnetic waves going in one very specific direction from one very specific point of the source spin as well?"

Then I realize this is like that thing where Mythbusters shined a flashlight off a jeep traveling at 50MPH against something a few feet away to see if light bends.

>I don't understand why I can't stop dwelling on this.

[Anonymous No.7141256]

>>7141244
he takes 24 bits of data, and transmits it by sending a corresponding frequency out of 2^24 predefined frequencies

the use of 24 here is arbitrary

[Anonymous No.7141278]

I'm more of a /g/ guy than /sci/, so please correct my if I'm wrong, but doesn't entropy and special relativity make unlimited compression and instantaneous transfer impossible?

[Anonymous No.7141290]

>Butthurt: The Thread.

[Anonymous No.7141291]

>>7141278
i don't know the wording for it

but can you compress a perfectly random 1M block of data to 1 bit? no. unlimited compression is impossible, 1 bit can only represent 2 states, the random block of data contains 8 million bits of random data, random data is incompressible, as there are no patterns to take advantage of

nothing moves faster then light, right? so even fiber communication is limited by the speed of light, and even if you transmitted say, that same 1M block of data fully in parallel (as in, every bit at once by using multiple cables and/or multiplexing), the data will still be traveling no faster then the speed of light, which is not instantaneous

[Anonymous No.7141294]

>>7141291
I basically had the same idea written out, you beat me to it.

[Anonymous No.7141301]

>>7141291
in saying the second thing, that would be the fastest way to transfer anything though, using light in complete parallel

say it takes 1 second for light to travel between two points, if you sent that block using 8 million flashes of light simultaneously, then the receiving end would get the entire block of data in no more than 1 second

[Anonymous No.7141333]

>>7140751
>I don't know what sort of kids your grew up around, but I NEVER once as a 14-year-old saw anyone who would have known half that shit, and I moved twice around that time.
It's because the ones that do keep to themselves.

[Anonymous No.7141362]

>>7141278
The pigeonhole principle makes unlimited compression trivially impossible. Suppose you're trying to compress 2 bits into 1 bit: There's no way to pair the 4 values 00, 01, 10 and 11 with the 2 values 0, 1.

Same goes for any size of compression. If you're trying to compress a 10 MB file, then only 50% of files can actually be made smaller, even if just by a single bit.

In fact, almost all files are impossible to compress.

[Anonymous No.7141372]

damn people sure are jealous

[Anonymous No.7141384]

>>7141372
of?

[Anonymous No.7141390]

>>7141362
> Suppose you're trying to compress 2 bits into 1 bit: There's no way to pair the 4 values 00, 01, 10 and 11 with the 2 values 0, 1.

This is not always relevant.

For example.

Say you create the following mapping:

00 eat
01 make love
10 graduate college
11 go on vacation

and the compression algorithm assigns the numeric values

0 eat
10 make love
110 graduate college
111 go on vacation

Suppose the data mostly consists of "eat" and "make love".

You will find the average bits needed is approximately 1.5, ( (1 eat) + (2 make love) / 2)

So you have squeezed 2 bits into 1.5 bits and defied the pigeonhole principle.

[Anonymous No.7141406]

>>7141390
This seems to “defy” the pigeonhole principle only because you are assuming that your input data consists of one particular class of easily compressible data.

That's not an assumption we can make when talking about a hypothetical “perfect compressor”.

[Anonymous No.7141414]

Well I can almost garuntee you Jacob "autismo" Barnett will contribute nothing. No clue who the other guy is so he may actually do something. So many "genius" kids. Mozart was a genius, at their age he was famous across Europe and composed great works. Newton was in his twenties and invented calculus. Genius is an extremely overused term.

[Anonymous No.7141420]

>>7141390
baby's intro to compression

[Anonymous No.7141422]

>>7140832
Dupont looks and sounds like a transient ranch-hand straight out of the 1930s dust bowl

[Anonymous No.7141492]

>>7141406
> This seems to “defy” the pigeonhole principle only because you are assuming that your input data consists of one particular class of easily compressible data.
One class of data had to be selected for demonstration purposes. Real world data, in particular DVD movies, often have a lot of repetitive data.

> That's not an assumption we can make when talking about a hypothetical “perfect compressor”
No assumptions of any kind can be made because you have not defined "hypothetical “perfect compressor”".

The problem with the use of the pidgeonhole principle is it can be used to prove compression algorithms themselves are impossible,
but anyone who has used zip file software knows that to be false.

[Anonymous No.7141507]

>>7141492
Please keep in mind that the context is >>7141278, which specifically talks about unlimited compression and how to prove it impossible.

I am presenting the pigeonhole principle as a very simple way of doing that.

In particular, the referenced scale here is compressing a movie into a “mere kilobyte”, which could only ever hypothetically work if there were no more than 1000 movies in the world to begin with.

[Anonymous No.7141520]

>>7141507
> which could only ever hypothetically work if there were no more than 1000 movies in the world to begin with
Don't you mean (2 EXP 8000) movies ? A rather large number since there are, what, (2 EXP 100) atoms in the universe.

[Anonymous No.7141546]

>>7140693
>neither will contribute anything
This *100, they may be more intelligent than any of us, but with all the attention and glorification they get their egos often grow so large that they are unable to work in any kind of team. In the end, there are tons of these "child geniuses", but in the end it's most of the "average scientist" that really makes a difference.

[Anonymous No.7141714]

>>7140738
When I was 14 I was in "Calc II" which is high school AP Calc, along with some buddies, and no one gave two shits about us. Even to other students, we were just weird kids.
Also most 14 year olds know what those words mean.

[Anonymous No.7141718]

>7GB movie file into "a mere kilobyte"
I seriously doubt this is possible, unless the compressing is eye bleedingly bad.

[Anonymous No.7141730]

>>7140949
naw, jacob is kinda cool. I feel for the autistic fucker, at least he can learn textbook math way beyond his years. I also feel bad for Dupont, unless he wrote that himself. His claims are pathetically ridiculous.

[Anonymous No.7141739]

>>7141718
Dupont is making meme-tier shit. Nxt thing you know he'll have a "Formula to Calculate the World's Largest Primes so Easily a Child Could Do it!" But of course nothing will be heard about him later.

[Anonymous No.7141748]

>>7140858
That's not the same fucking thing, the algorithm supposedly invented by a kid isn't for procedural generation, it's compression of an actual movie. That video is generated on the fly by the program, it's not compressed. You don't know what you are talking about, it's literally impossible to compress a 7gb video that much, because it's impossible for 8000 0's or 1's to come even close to storing all that data.

[Anonymous No.7141756]

>>7141164
is this true??

[Anonymous No.7141859]

>>7141756
>is this true??
of course. asians are the biggest cheaters around. chinese, koreans and indians have no morality towards honesty. japanese, on the other hand, don't cheat at all.

[Anonymous No.7141869]

>>7140892
Not him, but I knew Java and C around that age as well. Didn't know much math, but knew enough more science than my teachers, for sure.

I wasn't a prodigy, just a kid who read all sorts of science books and fucked about with computers. I barely scraped into a top grad school, so i'm not that smart either.

[Anonymous No.7141870]

>like an algorithm capable of compressing 7GB movie file into "a mere kilobyte".

pretty sure he'd be one of the richest people on the planet if he had compression this strong with no data integrity loss. literally everyone from google to the nsa (implying theyre not the same thing) to the telcos and the entertainment industry would want to use his algorithm because it'd save billions upon billions in overhead.

[noko No.7141887]

I just searched this shit, Glenn Beck asked him "It's said Stephen Hawking can think in 3 dimensions"

Jacob Barnett said, "I believe that's true, but I can think in 4 and 5"

wow

[Anonymous No.7141891]

>>7141887
>"It's said Stephen Hawking can think in 3 dimensions"
Literally who doesn't think in 3 dimensions?

[noko No.7141894]

>>7141891
Yea I'm not even sure what the question by Beck was supposed to even mean but my reason for posting was the asinine response by the young Barnett...

Maybe it was a loaded question to see how Barnett would respond?

[Anonymous No.7141919]

>>7140745
>Spectrocable
>ending data in sRGB instead of binary
lel when I was his age my genius idea was quaternary computing/communication. It would double the speed of everything guys!!

>Stealth Wireless
>radio communication also in sRGB
>that kid's face when he learns about Shannon, noise and bandwidth
...
okay when I was his age my idea was to use more of the radio spectrum by putting many radio channels on different bands on one single channel. Like less channels used = less of the spectrum used. Yeah, I didn't understand bandwidth.

>compress a 7 gigabyte movie into a mere kilobyte
okay now that's just plain retarded, but come on I'm sure we all thought infinite compression was possible. Heck I used to back things up by saving shortcuts to a floppy disk and thought it was the most brilliant way to save space.

>utilizing physical identifiers on its proprietary chips, Spectre Vault is able to transfer sensitive data without any chance of interception
I can't even figure this one out...

[Anonymous No.7142095]

>>7140793
no you don't get it, it's worse than that. The wiki article talks about essentially using different wavelengths of light as different carriers like in radio transmission. That genius kid is talking about putting 24 bits together to make a sRGB colour and then transmitting that colour. It's that retarded.

>twitter.com/CyborgUSA
>Good news - we've been notified by the IEEE that the paper was assigned to a higher level team for a more in depth review. More info soon.
>Quick update to everyone: @dupontcyborg's paper is set to be published in the July 2015 edition of Communications Mag from the IEEE.
Jesus... I thought IEEE was supposed to be a respected institution

[Anonymous No.7142101]

>>7140691
>Dupont
His name alone makes me want to punch him in the face.

[Anonymous No.7142129]

>>7140756
Still can't solve the Riemann.

[Anonymous No.7142140]

>>7141894

>believing you think in three dimensions
LOL You don't. Most people don't. Put them in a situation that isn't on a flat plane, fuck even on a line in some cases, and they can't figure out what the fuck they're doing. Some even vomit.

[Anonymous No.7142175]

>>7142129
because he didnt spend enough time on it bruh

[Anonymous No.7142191]

>>7142095
As someone actually studying optical communications, this makes me very curious. There is no way any of the stuff presented on his website could make it past peer review. IEEE is also not that slow in publishing, so if he says it is set to be published in July 2015, then it means it hasn't actually been accepted yet.

[Anonymous No.7142307]

>>7141244
He takes binary data, converts it to RGB, then assigns each RGB color to be a part of a quantized spectrum of frequencies, then shifts the signal to that frequency.

The RGB conversion step is completely pointless. He could just as easily assign a frequency to each chunk of binary data and skip the overhead of the conversion.

[Anonymous No.7142317]

>>7140693
This. They can spin their quad-integrals of inverse spheres within a quantum dimension of imaginary spacetimes. GLHF doing anything useful with that.

[Anonymous No.7142318]

>>7141406
>only because you are assuming that your input data consists of one particular class of easily compressible data.
that is often the case in data compression

[Anonymous No.7142388]

>>7142318
often is not always. It was explicitly stated that we're talking about perfect and unlimited compression and how it's impossible.

[Anonymous No.7142399]

>>7142318
the point is you can't fit all possible combinations of 2 bits into 1 bit (four unique combinations into a space which can only possibly describe 2 unique states)

[Anonymous No.7142494]

>>7142317
You're actually a retard.

[Anonymous No.7142549]

>>7140875
>>7140858
I've seen the movie not even realizing there was an OVA, does the movie use the same footage as the series or no?

[Anonymous No.7142578]

>>7140691

I'm like 90% sure Dupont knows its a joke and is smart enough to know how to fuck with people. It just sounds like something I would've done with my friends while we're all wearing dad's old suits

[Anonymous No.7142581]

>>7140691
Jacob is probably smarter. Check out pic related.

[Anonymous No.7142588]

>>7142581

[Anonymous No.7142597]

>>7140691
For some reason, the guy on the right reminds me on this.

[Anonymous No.7142695]

>>7140928
That image makes me rage pretty hard. 10/10 anon.

[Anonymous No.7142701]

>>7142597

Best game ever.

Elegy of Emptiness ftw

[Anonymous No.7142706]

Nobody knows the future.
They could fuck a hooker and die in 2 years for all we know.
Get back to maths. Leave the tabloid gossip to plebs.

Also Terry Tao is the best.

[Anonymous No.7142712]

>>7142494
u angry jacob? u mad?

[Anonymous No.7142740]

>>7142695
>That image makes me rage pretty hard. 10/10 anon.
autistic anger issues. take your meds, kid.

[Anonymous No.7142744]

>>7142740
What is the typical pharmaceutical treatment for autism anyway?
Just stuff they use for ADHD?

[Anonymous No.7142852]

>>7142740
I don't think it's autism, personally. I just don't know who she is trying to fool by sticking a syringe into what looks like a beaded necklace that resembles human DNA. The picture is stupid, regardless of whether I'm autistic or not.

[Anonymous No.7142868]

>>7140691
>"algorithm capable of compressing 7GB movie file into a "mere kilobyte""
You know how easy this is and apart from that it only works on one movie, this is like GTA:SA compressed into 6 megabytes, around 8+ years ago.

[Anonymous No.7142874]

>>7142744
Antipsychotic drugs that cause gynecomastia and obesity and have no effect in quelling agitation and temper tantrums.

[Anonymous No.7142884]

>>7142868
Is English your first language? If so, please clarify your statement. If not, please reword or rephrase your statement. Thanks.

[Anonymous No.7142891]

>>7141301
Except it's not.
Teleporting light is faster than light travelling.
Which has already been done.
But it's improbable.

[noko No.7142907]

>>7142140
Okay....disregard the 3 dimensions, what do you think about young Barnett's response that he thinks in "4 and 5!!!"

[Anonymous No.7143371]

>>7141278

compression usually consists of a given set of algorithms to locate and substitute repeating fragments, if no repeating fragments rules can be found the data can't be compressed
efficient compression algorithms transform the data set in a single system of equations give a rough sketch of the set and several correction parameters to get a better approximation to the original set, doing this can dramatically decrease size of a file but will of course incur in data loss
the problem is not so much how small can you make your file, but to find the algorithms to optimize the data loss/compression relation within acceptable parameters for a given task
unlimited compression without data loss is impossible, that's a given, but the limits of how much you can compress given an acceptable threshold of data loss are not very clear, it involves finding generalized ways to express very large data sets with simple rules and that's no easy task, it's problem similar in complexity to finding a rule to produce any arbitrarily large prime number out of the set of all possible prime numbers that wouldn't take longer than the lifetime of the universe to calculate after we reach really large scales, maybe this is the very same problem

[Anonymous No.7143570]

>>7141291
3.14615925358979

is 16bytes of pie, and is 15 digits of pi

9801/(2206sqrt2) is like 16bytes and is 20,000 digits of pi

unlimited compression is impossible, but we can do some pretty amazing compression in specific cases. maths should allow us to compress pretty long strings of 0s and 1s with multiplication or comparison to irrational numbers, however the processing power and time required to both compress and then decompress would be quite high.

[Anonymous No.7143586]

>>7143570
that's still simply recognizing and simplifying patterns, which is just the kind of thing we already do

[Anonymous No.7143597]

>>7142891
lol no.

[Anonymous No.7143613]

The simplest way to think about data compression is that you're mapping one byte string of a given length to another of a possibly different length.

We typically do this by using and simplifying patterns that we find in data, but the important part is that you're just mapping data to data with an injective function.

This is where the pigeon hole principle comes in. Obviously not all of the data can get smaller. Not even worrying about how we indicate termination, if you have an 8 bit string, there's 256 possibilities. If you map each of those to some bit string that's less than 8 bits, you would have one 8 bit value that you can't compress. Not only that, all of the values less than 8 bits need to get remapped somewhere else, so they all either become 8 bits long or greater. Obviously, no matter what you end up doing, things will end up increasing in size after a certain point, and there's nothing you can do about it, so unless your 7GB file is only a bunch of zeros, you'd have a higher probability of eating out your own asshole than compressing it down to a kilobyte.

[Anonymous No.7143669]

>>7143613
So what is your guess at the minimum average compressed size for a 7GB file that has significant pattern or repetition such as pictures or videos ?

[Anonymous No.7143779]

>>7143669
It would depend on whether you're using lossy or lossless compression. Let's just assume that this supposedly magic algorithm was lossless. After a quick check, the current best lossless compression algorithm has an 87.01% compression ratio for bitmap files (which are very redundant). Assuming that there would be a similar compression ratio for videos and pictures, 7GB would get compressed down to just under 1GB.

Just to put things into perspective, compressing 1GB to 1KB would be a 99.9999% compression ratio.

Lossless compression algorithms typically can perform better, but you would never get that kind of performance.

[Anonymous No.7143795]

>The Du Pont family is an American family descended from Pierre Samuel du Pont de Nemours (1739–1817). Since the 1800s the Du Pont family has been one of the richest families in America.[1]

>In recent years, the family name has mostly been tied to well publicized criminal cases, such as heir John Eleuthère du Pont being convicted of murdering a wrestling coach in 1996 [2] and heir Robert Richards being convicted of raping his 3-year old daughter in 2014.

[Anonymous No.7143874]

>>7143779
Rephrase slightly:
So what is your guess at the minimum average compressed size in bytes for a 7GB file,
assuming the algorithm is close to some theoretical optimal limit (+-100%) using maximum compression technique,
and the data set has significant pattern or repetition such as with typical picture or video content ?

Assume "minimum average" means that over approximately 90% of files will compress at or below the value indicated.
Assume streaming video content in 1080p.

a) Assume lossless algorithm that need not decompress at real time frame rates, but overall is consistent with contemporary processing speed architechture.
b) Assume a viewer acceptable (can hardly tell the difference) lossy algorithm under the constraints of a).

[Anonymous No.7143954]

>>7143874
not him but if you mean "typical picture or video content" as existing files such as jpeg's and h264-format video, then those are already compressed
compressing compressed data is typically rather fruitless, and stripping more than a couple percent off is very unlikely

you don't reduce the side of a compressed video by compressing it as it is, but by decompressing it and feeding the uncompressed video back into a compressor (with settings to use less of a bitrate)

same with pictures, if you want to make a jpeg smaller, it's decompressed then recompressed

also, your question of "minimum possible average for an arbitrary 7GB file", i'd have to say 50%. simply because a 7G file could contain anything from 1 to 7 billion bits of /information/, and a 'perfect' algorithm could bring the file down to that minimum, so the average would simply be in the middle

as for common real life 7G files, you could only go off compression algorithms we currently have, and benchmarks for those

for b), that depends. on one hand many types of files simply can't be compressed in a lossy way, like text. then there's the issue with determining "hardly tell the difference", this is subjective and the point where a difference is noticed will vary from person to person

[Anonymous No.7143959]

>>7143954
>from 1 to 7 billion bits
that should read "1 bit" to "7 billion bits"

[Anonymous No.7144124]

>>7143954
> if you mean "typical picture or video content" as existing files such as jpeg's and h264-format video, then those are already compressed
It should be obvious the post is referring to initially uncompressed raw data. 1080p refers to the resolution.

> then those are already compressed compressing compressed data is typically rather fruitless, and stripping more than a couple percent off is very unlikely
> you don't reduce the side of a compressed video by compressing it as it is, but by decompressing it and feeding the uncompressed video back into a compressor
> (with settings to use less of a bitrate) same with pictures, if you want to make a jpeg smaller, it's decompressed then recompressed
> on one hand many types of files simply can't be compressed in a lossy way, like text.
All this is correct enough.

> i'd have to say 50%. simply because a 7G file could contain anything from 1 to 7 billion bits of /information/, and a 'perfect' algorithm could bring
> the file down to that minimum, so the average would simply be in the middle
Interesting guess complete with a circular argument.

> then there's the issue with determining "hardly tell the difference", this is subjective and the point where a difference is noticed will vary from person to person
Just use standard digital television or original DVD quality or something for the lossy factor.

Condensed version:
a) 3.5 GB
b) Refused to guess.

[Anonymous No.7144154]

>>7144124
for b), your best bet is to look as tests/benchmarks of existing codecs for various lossy encoders (x264, libjpeg, libopus, etc), specifically what is listed as "considered perceptually transparent", like for example, ffmpeg's x264 settings default to qp=23, which is generally considered good enough, and opus at 96kbps is also generally considered good enough

there's too many variables for a single "average percentage reduced" for all kinds of lossy encoding to mean anything

[Anonymous No.7144196]

>>7144154
> your best bet is to look as tests/benchmarks of existing codecs for various lossy encoders
That doesn't attempt to answer the question started here:
>>7143669
and further described here:
>>7143874
rather gives information on the current state of the art.

> there's too many variables for a single "average percentage reduced" for all kinds of lossy encoding to mean anything
Even the mention of all these codecs shows there can be consistency. That is, what good is a codec/ algorithm if the
compression deviation routinely exceeds a standard distribution media's capacity.
(e. g. a television channel's bandwidth or a disk's media capacity)

You are just confusing the question with some jargon.

[Anonymous No.7144208]

>>7141135
That 5 Hz bandwidth, in 2.4 Ghz band.

[Anonymous No.7144227]

Where's that video where Jacob Barnett tries to prove that a divergent series converges?

[Anonymous No.7144236]

>>7144196
>(e. g. a television channel's bandwidth or a disk's media capacity)
the amount of content (number of pictures of a given resolution, minutes of audio/video) able to be put on a particular media or within a given bandwidth at a reasonable quality is generally driven by what codecs can do at a given time, along with various definitions of reasonable quality

it's always been about weighing up between bandwidth, what a codec can do, and what looks/sounds good enough for a purpose

a film-length video in 1080p resolution with h264 encoding requires anything between 10-30GB to look close to the source films' quality, to get equivalent quality out of older codecs like mpeg4 part 2, mpeg2, mpeg1 or older non-mpeg codecs like vp6, realvideo, windows media video, indeo, smacker, bink, sorensen, etc, etc would require more space, and in the future, perhaps new techniques could reduce the size further (of course, we'll also be bumping things like resolution, color depth, and framerate as well, so it's unlikely we'll be reducing the size of media overall)

[Anonymous No.7144238]

>>7143795
He's actually from France though. Dupont is like the second most common family name there.

[Anonymous No.7144307]

>>7144236
A point is getting lost in all this chit chat:
That no one has shown a typical 2 hour movie cannot theoretically be compressed to 1KB.

[Anonymous No.7144313]

>>7144307
well at what point do you consider the quality to be too low?

i mean, you could probably do it if you had a 16x16 resolution, with a framerate of one every 30 minutes, along with a few audio tones to round things off

[Anonymous No.7144331]

>>7140745
>Spectrocable
>10^54000 bits per second
>by a factor of several billion, the fastest technology on the market

AAAAAAHHAHAHAHAHAHAAHA

[Anonymous No.7144334]

>>7144313
1. Go to Walmart
2. Randomly pick a standard DVD movie approximately 2 hrs long.
3. Use that as the quality reference.

Shrink to <= 1KB after obtaining access to original raw data. Theoretically possible for success 90% of time ?

[Anonymous No.7144389]

>>7144334
check out this encode of Airplane! i just did

like watching a childrens' handpainting being smeared across a wall

>still 78.4 million bits
>almost 2 kilobytes per /second/ (and it's only set to 2 frames per second)

http://a.pomf.se/ixbynz.mkv

while noone can be sure what kind of compression advancements could happen, putting a decent quality, arbitrary 2 hour movie into 1k 90% of the time is just silly

to get a definitive impossible/possible, you'd need some way to work out the information content of the important elements of a video
i'm sure it wouldn't take too much work to at least rule out 1k as being too little

[Anonymous No.7144402]

>>7142581
#REKT
>>7142588

[Anonymous No.7144405]

Nice video on compression/entropy

[Anonymous No.7144407]

Nice video on compression/entropy.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M5c_RFKVkko

[Anonymous No.7144644]

>>7140691
>Proved that god exists.

[Anonymous No.7144651]

>>7140691
How did this kid 'prove god exists'?

Even then, the very idea that a religious person needs proof of their god's existence is sacrilegious in many religions.

[Anonymous No.7144709]

>>7140793
>at least one antenna for emitting the electrical pulses as pulses as frequencies through a
>tfw your mom forgets to proof-read your patent before publishing it

[Anonymous No.7144859]

>>7140726
Well, while Barnett looks like a pretty smart kid (if a bit smug and full of himself due to how he's been fawned over by everyone he's ever encountered), DuPont is a certifiable moron.
His "compression algorithm" is actually just creating symbolic links to other files. the data is taking up the exact same amount of space, it's just the actual file listed in the file system doesn't take up as much space as the other data it's just pointing to. This is something that I could make a pre-schooler understand in, conservatively, no more than a few hours. DuPont, however, has gotten on stage and given multiple keynotes on his "compression algorithm," which looks like this:
$ ln -s $file1 $file2

[Anonymous No.7144894]

>>7144859
>Barnett looks like a pretty smart kid
he is smart for his age. IQ test doesnt lie. Also he is doing phD at 16, that's pretty impressive.
The other kid looks like an idiot compared to him.

[Anonymous No.7144900]

>>7144894
plus his mom is such a qt milf

[Anonymous No.7145016]

>>7144894
>smart for his age
>IQ test doesn't lie

It does however misrepresent. IQ tests for children compare cognitive development with physical age. So a child who is developing faster than his peers will score high. However over time his development might slow or plateau, in which case his adult IQ will be lower than it was as a child, and could even be merely average.

>he is doing phD at 16
Barnett is not doing a PhD at 16. He is enrolled in a PhD companion course. To enroll in a PhD program he will need to first complete his bachelors.

[Anonymous No.7145025]

>>7140724

he did calc 2, so of course he can disprove einstein.


Seriously, the problem is with how dumb people treat smart kids. no, just because the kid is smarter than you doesn't mean everything they say is right, stop telling them that they know better than people who have dedicated their lives to the field simply because you're too stupid to understand mathematical concepts that were established 250 years ago.

[Anonymous No.7145040]

>>7140738

Yes, when they're claiming to know better than adults we can judge them like adults. Telling them "wow thats sooo smart good for you" is only wasting their potential. They need someone who knows their shit to knock them down a peg so they can apply their intelligence in a productive manner instead of using nonsense to impress idiots who don't know any better.

[Anonymous No.7145049]

>>7140691
What DuPont is doing is called fraud, see: HP beats.

[Anonymous No.7145054]

>>7140806

They should start publishing some of these proofs so they can be put under scrutiny.

Oh wait no, because then they would be confronted by people who aren't impressed with their ability to solve basic differentials.

[Anonymous No.7145059]

>>7140821

Hm, weird how this kid has had almost no buzz in academic circles.

Must be because he's been talking out of his ass and doesn't actually have anything.

[simple sam No.7145233]

>>7142852
It's clearly meant to be stupid and if it actually angers you, then I'm pretty sure you are < 16 and very new on the block (with poor deductive reasoning skills as well - what makes you think this was "her" private photo project).

[Anonymous No.7145320]

>>7145025
wat

[Anonymous No.7145768]

>>7144389
> like watching a childrens' handpainting being smeared across a wall...still 78.4 million bits
Nice demonstration of the capabilites of current algorithms.

> putting a decent quality, arbitrary 2 hour movie into 1k 90% of the time is just silly
I agree it sounds a bit extreme. I made several posts trying to get a "realistic figure" for
what educated people thought a theoretical limit might be, but mostly irrellevent comments came back.

> i'm sure it wouldn't take too much work
It's actually a very difficult problem.

[Anonymous No.7145796]

>>7144894
7/10
got a few idiots all worked up :^)

[Anonymous No.7145802]

Barnett wins. The kid's smart, he's at the level where he's years ahead in learning, unfortunately we don't know if he'll succeed in real math like Terry.
Jacob hasn't even done anything at all.

I think the real extreme prodigies all made it to IMO.

Prove me wrong.

[Anonymous No.7145853]

>>7142140
Right because when I'm in a room with a door, my brain can't imagine something being on the other side of the door.

[Anonymous No.7145959]

>>7140693
/thread

[Anonymous No.7146104]

>>7140751
this

[Anonymous No.7146118]

>>7145768
>It's actually a very difficult problem.
finding out the average entropy of a 2 hour film would be stupid hard, yes

what i mean is that it wouldn't be too far into finding that out that you would be certain 1k is too low

lets start with an average movies' subtitles, we have good ideas about the entropy of the average text in several languages, how about the average word count in 2 hour films (or in general, normalized as if every movie was 2 hours), will even the subtitles be under 1k bits of entropy when compressed? if so, then you can immediately rule out video and audio, which are quite obviously far denser in information

[Anonymous No.7146130]

>>7146118
>when compressed? if so, then you
if not*

[Anonymous No.7146176]

>>7146118
Your post is all nonsense.

You are a alleging that:

Entropy1 + Entropy2 = simple grade school addition

Say we have the text words
red, blue, green
that compress to 10 bits

then by your rule
red, blue, green, red, blue, green
must compress to 20 bits or at least 12 or something

With more complex algorithms and data it can actually compress to LESS than 10 bits.