I know that I can encode numbers to a base like 65 to decrease the size of the character display (even if the number is smaller in binary).
However, is there a way to encode UTF-8 text to another base with more characters than our standard 26 letter English alphabet? In other words, Instead of requiring 4 "characters" for the word "four" - I can create a representation or hash using only, maybe 2 (i.e. "6$")?
I believe the point of Base64 is you can easily convert any binary data into "human readable" letters and numbers. It makes it easy to transcribe arbitrary data to newsgroups or transmit them over text based protocols.
If you want to further "compress" this data, you need to figure out how many characters you want to allow. There's only so many combinations of 8 bits. The most efficient would be to use all of them, in which case why just not use gzip?
Your question seems related to Order-0 entropy coding :
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entropy_encoding
The most famous algorithm is this family is Huffman coding :
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Huffman_coding
Huffman will not only tells you that only 64 characters are used and therefore only 6 bits per characters are necessary : it will also make a difference between frequent characters, such as (space), and rare ones, such as (;). It will then create a code in which frequent characters use less bits than rarer ones, resulting in better compression (typically 4.5bits per character on English texts).
Huffman coding is an all-around compression technique, used as part of many compression algorithms, including zip.
You can find a demo program which only applies one pass of Huffman compression here (Huff0), it will help you determine how much can be gained by using this technique for your sample inputs :
http://fastcompression.blogspot.com/p/huff0-range0-entropy-coders.html
Related
I have a string like this
ODQ1OTc3MzY0MDcyNDk3MTUy.YKoz0Q.wlST3vVZ3IN8nTtVX1tz8Vvq5O8
The first part of the string is a random 18 digit number in base64 format and the second is a unix timestamp in base64 too, while the last is an hmac.
I want to make a model to recognize a string like this.
How may i do it?
While I did not necessarily think deeply about it, this would be what comes to my mind first.
You certainly don't need machine learning for this. In fact, machine learning would not only be inefficient for problems like this but may even be worse, depending on a given approach.
Here, an exact solution can be achieved, simply by understanding the problem.
One way people often go about matching strings with a certain structure is with so called regular expressions or RegExp.
Regular expressions allow you to match string patterns of varying complexity.
To give a simple example in Python:
import re
your_string = "ODQ1OTc3MzY0MDcyNDk3MTUy.YKoz0Q.wlST3vVZ3IN8nTtVX1tz8Vvq5O8"
regexp_pattern = r"(.+)\.(.+)\.(.+)"
re.findall(regexp_pattern, your_string)
>>> [('ODQ1OTc3MzY0MDcyNDk3MTUy', 'YKoz0Q', 'wlST3vVZ3IN8nTtVX1tz8Vvq5O8')]
Now one problem with this is how do you know where your string starts and stops. Most of the times there are certain anchors, especially in strings that were created programmatically. For instance, if we knew that prior to each string you wanted to match there is the word Token: , you could include that in your RegExp pattern r"Token: (.+)\.(.+)\.(.+)".
Other ways to avoid mismatches would be to clearer define the pattern requirements. Right now we simply match a pattern with any amount of characters and two . separating them into three sequences.
If you would know which implementation of base64 you were using, you could limit the alphabet of potential characters from . (thus any) to the alphabet used in your base64 implementation [abcdefgh1234]. In this example it would be abcdefgh1234, so the pattern could be refined like this r"([abcdefgh1234]+).([abcdefgh1234]+).(.+)"`.
The same applies to the HMAC code.
Furthermore, you could specify the allowed length of each substring.
For instance, you said you have 18 random digits. This would likely mean each is encoded as 1 byte, which would translate to 18*8 = 144 bits, which in base64, would translate to 24 tokens (where each encodes a sextet, thus 6 bits of information). The same could be done with the timestamp, assuming a 32 bit timestamp, this would likely necessitate 6 base64 tokens (representing 36 bits, 36 because you could not divide 32 into sextets).
With this information, you could further refine the pattern
r"([abcdefgh1234]{24})\.([abcdefgh1234]{6})\.(.+)"`
In addition, the same could be applied to the HMAC code.
I leave it to you to read a bit about RegExp but I'd guess it is the easiest solution and certainly more appropriate than any kind of machine learning.
While reading the Strings and Characters chapter of the official Swift document I found the following sentence
"Every string is composed of encoding-independent Unicode characters, and provide support for accessing those characters in various Unicode representations"
Question What exactly do encoding-independent mean?
From my reading on Advanced Swift By Chris and other experiences, the thing that this sentence is trying to convey can be 2 folds.
First, what are various unicode representations:
UTF-8 : compatible with ASCII
UTF-16
UTF-32
The number on the right hand side means how many bits a Character will take when it represented or stored.
For a character, UTF-8 requires 8 bits while UTF-32 requires 32 bits.
However, a chinese character which can be represented by 1 UTF-32 memory might not always fit in 1 block of UTF-16 memory. If the character aquires all 32 bits then in UTF-8 it will have a count of 4.
Then comes the storing part. When you store a character in the String, it doesn't matter how you want to read it later.
For example:
Every string is composed of encoding-independent Unicode characters, and provide support for accessing those characters in various Unicode representations
This means, you can compose String by any way you like. And this wont effect the representation when reading on various unicode encoding formats like UTF-8 or 16 or 32.
This is seen clearly in the above example, When i try to load a Japanese Character which takes up 24 bit to store. The same character is displayed irrespective of my choice of encoding.
However, count value will differ. There are other points to consider like Code Unit and Code Point that make up this Strings.
For Unicode Encoding variants
I would highly recommend reading this article which goes way deeper into String api in swift.
Detail View of String API in swift
I have strings (millions of them) of 2,475 characters in size each. These strings are consisting of 0 & 1. I am converting each string to ASCII and back, so 8 initial chars become 1. This give me a much shorter length of 310 chars. But as this length is still big enough I have tried some additional compression of the already shortened string. I have used Huffman Encoding/Decoding with not so important results. I have also tried an RLE approach with better results (encoding between 205 to 212) chars over the already existing strings. But here is my problem! As I do not know the strings beforehand I am looking for a compression/decompression algorithm that produces fixed length output. Does something like that exist? I have searched also about Endless compression but without finding any solid suggestions/algorithms. Any idea will be welcomed.
If the only thing you know about the strings is that they each consist of 2475 characters and that every character is 0 or 1, then there is no fixed-length compression scheme that does better than 2475 bits (310 bytes, with 5 bits ignored). It's simple to prove that no such compression scheme can exist, since there are 22475 possible strings, and they all need to have different codes (if the compression is to be reversible). However, the shortest bit sequences which has 22475 different possible values is 2475 bits long. QED.
Of course, if some 2475-character sequences are not possible, then you can compress more by not reserving any compressed value for illegal sequences. However, in order to create an appropriate compression algorithm, you need to know what sequences are impossible, and customize the compression algorithm accordingly. So there is no general purpose algorithm.
General purpose compression algorithms do not have fixed length output because they stochastically compress certain strings to varying degrees, while other strings are compressed negatively (that is, expanded). The assumption is that all strings have some sort of internal pattern, typically a repetition pattern, and the compression can take advantage of repetitions to reduce length. To compensate, a non-repeating string will end up being expanded.
I'm going to be working on software (in c#) that needs to read/write Unicode strings (specifically English, German, Spanish and Arabic) to a hardware device. The firmware developer tells me that his code expects to store each string as fixed-length byte array in one binary file so he can quickly access any string using an index (index * length = starting offset and then read the fixed-length number of bytes). I understand that .NET internally uses a UTF-16 encoding which I believe is technically a variable-length encoding (depending upon the number of the Unicode code point). I'm fairly certain that English, German and Spanish would all use two bytes/character when encoded using UTF-16 but I'm not so sure about Arabic. It looks like there might be some Arabic characters that could possibly require three bytes each in UTF-16 and that would seem to break the firmware developers plan to store the strings as a fixed length.
First, can anyone confirm my understanding of the variable-length nature of UTF-8/UTF-16 encodings? And second, although it would waste a lot of space, is UTF-32 (fixed-size, each character represented using 4 bytes) the best option for ensuring that each string could be stored as a fixed length? Thanks!
Unicode terminology:
Each entry in the Unicode character set is a code point
Encoded code points consist of one or more code units in a transformation format (UTF-8 uses 8 bit code units; UTF-16 uses 16 bit code units)
The user-visible grapheme might consist of a sequence of code points
So:
A code point in UTF-8 is 1, 2, 3 or 4 octets wide
A code point in UTF-16 is 2 or 4 octets wide
A code point in UTF-32 is 4 octets wide
The number of graphemes rendered on the screen might be less than the number of code points
So, if you want to support the entire Unicode range you need to make the fixed-length strings a multiple of 32 bits regardless of which of these UTFs you choose as the encoding (I'm assuming unused bytes will be set to 0x0 and that these will be appended, trimmed during I/O.)
In terms of communicating length restrictions via a user interface you'll probably want to decide on some compromise based on a code unit size and the typical customer rather than try to find the width of the most complicated grapheme you can build.
i'm need to write a function that will flip all the characters of a string left-to-right.
e.g.:
Thė quiçk ḇrown fox jumṕềᶁ ovểr thë lⱥzy ȡog.
should become
.goȡ yzⱥl ëht rểvo ᶁềṕmuj xof nworḇ kçiuq ėhT
i can limit the question to UTF-16 (which has the same problems as UTF-8, just less often).
Naive solution
A naive solution might try to flip all the things (e.g. word-for-word, where a word is 16-bits - i would have said byte for byte if we could assume that a byte was 16-bits. i could also say character-for-character where character is the data type Char which represents a single code-point):
String original = "ɗỉf̴ḟếr̆ęnͥt";
String flipped = "";
foreach (Char c in s)
{
flipped = c+fipped;
}
Results in the incorrectly flipped text:
ɗỉf̴ḟếr̆ęnͥt
̨tͥnę̆rếḟ̴fỉɗ
This is because one "character" takes multiple "code points".
ɗỉf̴ḟếr̆ęnͥt
ɗ ỉ f ˜ ḟ ế r ˘ ę n i t ˛
and flipping each "code point" gives:
˛ t i n ę ˘ r ế ḟ ˜ f ỉ ɗ
Which not only is not a valid UTF-16 encoding, it's not the same characters.
Failure
The problem happens in UTF-16 encoding when there is:
combining diacritics
characters in another lingual plane
Those same issues happen in UTF-8 encoding, with the additional case
any character outside the 0..127 ASCII range
i can limit myself to the simpler UTF-16 encoding (since that's the encoding that the language that i'm using has (e.g. C#, Delphi)
The problem, it seems to me, is discovering if a number of subsequent code points are combining characters, and need to come along with the base glyph.
It's also fun to watch an online text reverser site fail to take this into account.
Note:
any solution should assume that don't have access to a UTF-32 encoding library (mainly becuase i don't have access to any UTF-32 encoding library)
access to a UTF-32 encoding library would solve the UTF-8/UTF-16 lingual planes problem, but not the combining diacritics problem
The term you're looking for is “grapheme cluster”, as defined in Unicode TR29 Cluster Boundaries.
Group the UTF-16 code units into Unicode code points (=characters) using the surrogate algorithm (easy), then group the characters into grapheme clusters using the Grapheme_Cluster_Break rules. Finally reverse the group order.
You will need a copy of the Unicode character database in order to recognise grapheme cluster boundaries. That's already going to take up a considerable amount of space, so you're probably going to want to get a library to do it. For example in ICU you might use a CharacterIterator (which is misleadingly named as it works on grapheme clusters, not ‘characters’ as Unicode knows it).
If you work in UTF-32, you solve the non-base-plane issue. Converting from UTF-8 or UTF-16 to UTF-32 (and back) is relatively simple bit twiddling (see Wikipedia). You don't have to have a library for it.
Most of the combining characters are in a few ranges. You could determine those ranges by scanning the Unicode database (see Unicode.org). Hardcode those ranges into your application. With that, you can determine the groups of codepoints that represent a single character. (The drawback is that new combining marks could be introduced in the future, and you'd need to update your table.)
Segment appropriately, reverse the order (segment by segment), and convert back to UTF-8 or UTF-16 (or whatever you want).
Text Mechanic's Text Generator seems to do this in JavaScript. I'm sure it would be possible to translate the JS into another language after obtaining the author's consent (if you can find a 'contact' link for that site).