Timeline for Encoding $n$ natural numbers into one and back
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
15 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| S Dec 1, 2016 at 7:24 | history | suggested | Rodrigo de Azevedo | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
minor edits
|
| Dec 1, 2016 at 6:16 | review | Suggested edits | |||
| S Dec 1, 2016 at 7:24 | |||||
| Dec 1, 2016 at 5:41 | answer | added | Doctor J | timeline score: 4 | |
| Apr 5, 2014 at 12:49 | answer | added | Hugo | timeline score: 4 | |
| Jul 1, 2011 at 17:16 | comment | added | Douglas Zare | Without more restrictions, this doesn't seem to be a research level mathematics problem. In addition, this question could be rewritten to be much clearer and to be informative. I can immediately think of several encoding schemes, but I don't know what Gödel's encoding scheme was for $\mathbb{N}^n$, or exactly why that was unsatisfactory. If you want such an encoding scheme for programming, you may want additional properties such as that the usual operations (e.g., addition, comparison) on the results have some meaning on the decoded number, at least for some restricted set of inputs. | |
| Jul 1, 2011 at 16:49 | answer | added | Ghassen Hamrouni | timeline score: 1 | |
| Jul 1, 2011 at 16:23 | comment | added | Roland Bacher | I do not understand why this question was downvoted. I find an interesting question whose answer can be useful for programming. | |
| Jul 1, 2011 at 14:32 | answer | added | Andreas Blass | timeline score: 9 | |
| Jul 1, 2011 at 11:35 | answer | added | Neil Strickland | timeline score: 12 | |
| Jul 1, 2011 at 10:56 | answer | added | James Cranch | timeline score: 2 | |
| Jul 1, 2011 at 10:49 | answer | added | Julien Puydt | timeline score: 1 | |
| Jul 1, 2011 at 10:48 | comment | added | Emil Jeřábek | A trivial counting argument tells you that it is impossible to encode $n$ $m$-bit integers into less than $nm$ bits. Anyway, this does not look like research-level math question, see the faq. | |
| Jul 1, 2011 at 10:46 | comment | added | David Roberts♦ | By what standard are you going to measure 'better'? A random guess on my uneducated behalf hints to me that given any bounded set of $n$ numbers (say by $2^K$, $n$ arbitrary), the complexity of encoding these as a single number will probably escape the bound. What if you are trying to encode $2^K -n-1, 2^k - n ,\ldots, 2^K - 1$? | |
| Jul 1, 2011 at 10:43 | answer | added | GH from MO | timeline score: 3 | |
| Jul 1, 2011 at 10:31 | history | asked | Bagur | CC BY-SA 3.0 |