Timeline for Encoding $n$ natural numbers into one and back
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
7 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jul 1, 2011 at 15:08 | comment | added | GH from MO | @Snark: Fair enough. My second method (added after your comment, I think) is more efficient. | |
| Jul 1, 2011 at 13:30 | comment | added | Julien Puydt | @GH Well, the question was about a semi-efficient encoding, and your method makes encoding a single integer take as many bits as the integer itself already. Of course, you'll notice that my first answer was even worse -- in fact I typed as an answer what I thought was the worse answer (both inefficient and excluded by the question)... thinking about something and typing another sometimes doesn't give good results... | |
| Jul 1, 2011 at 11:03 | comment | added | GH from MO | What's wrong with my answer? I gave a simple way of encoding an arbitrary sequence of natural numbers into a single natural number. The encoding takes little space and decoding is easy. | |
| Jul 1, 2011 at 10:56 | history | edited | Julien Puydt | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
Better answer hopefully
|
| Jul 1, 2011 at 10:51 | comment | added | Julien Puydt | Sigh... reading the question again, I'm not answering correctly either... | |
| Jul 1, 2011 at 10:51 | comment | added | Emil Jeřábek | This is Gödel’s encoding, which the OP explicitly said they do not want. | |
| Jul 1, 2011 at 10:49 | history | answered | Julien Puydt | CC BY-SA 3.0 |