03-01-2025, 06:13 PM
(03-01-2025, 05:19 PM)Mauro wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.The metric is already optimized: the calculation of the Huffmann codes already considers frequent chunks over rare ones and frequent words over rare ones, and the codes are optimal (as demonstrated by Huffmann himself), so the metric is guaranteed to find the minimum amount of information needed (given a certain source grammar).
Note: log2(Csize) is used only in the chunks dictionary to calculate how many bits are needed for the chunks themselves, ie. 'ch' requires log2(Csize) bits, 'cph' requires 3*log2(Csize) bits, etc.
This is great, I misunderstood the formula then. The numbers shown for the naive grammars do roughly correspond to what I get by just gzipping the transliteration (minus the metadata, line numbers, etc), I get something like 6.5e5 bits.
I think your metric looks very good for practical assessment of these grammars.
Would be interesting to see which process, beyond the grammar compression, would results in the smallest lossless output.


![[+]](https://www.voynich.ninja/images/collapse_collapsed.png)