>   However, one algorithm can compress in *average* better than another.

define "average" ... as you probably know, there are different kind of messurements
...

If you think about the standard [ (x1+x2+x3)/3 ] average, then I wouldn't
swear on this for an infinite set of sources to compress ...

Maybe it _CAN_ be true for a countable, closed set ...
(as for all possible images, where it could be computable) but I'm still not sure
'bout this ...


....

BTW: After thinking a while, I came to the conclusion that your first
statement was not necessarily wrong...
It is of course possible, that one algorithm is worse for every case, than another ...

Post a reply to this message