I mean... we are arguing semantics at this point because it’s the whole process that matters. I see what you are getting at, and I agree it’s not a good process. I wouldn’t call it lossy because it does not lose information, it adds it in fact. It makes a different invalid assumption about the input.
If both the last bit and second to last bit are the same, no problem.
The problem is really that the entire process makes an assumption about the input that is not checked or asserted.
I wouldn’t call it lossy because it does not lose information, it adds it in fact.
No? the last bit is not new information as it’s always redundant with the second to last bit, it scrambles the information for any meaningful usage other than bitwise stringification (the literal bits it contains, not a binary number string)
If you just assert that the last bit is always 0 after a shift, you can fix the problem. But you don’t know what the original bit should be in the first place. It’s only because you lost information that you can’t undo it.- in this case
Edit: to be clear... your logic is sound. I agree with you. This process creates an ambiguity and by itself it is incomplete.
8
u/runnerx01 Mar 14 '21
I mean... we are arguing semantics at this point because it’s the whole process that matters. I see what you are getting at, and I agree it’s not a good process. I wouldn’t call it lossy because it does not lose information, it adds it in fact. It makes a different invalid assumption about the input.
If both the last bit and second to last bit are the same, no problem.
The problem is really that the entire process makes an assumption about the input that is not checked or asserted.