Reminds me of when I tried to use the library of babel as a data compression tool. It led me down a fun rabbit hole and was my first introduction to information theory.
The conclusion being that you basically need the same amount of data to represent the address of your data as the data itself, so it's not really effective at compression, just a fun thought experiment.
The cool part of this in modern times is that LLMs are basically a form of lossy compression that actually achieves the gist of what these tools fail at. Although it is lossy, and requires a massive substrate. This is related to the idea of AI/LLMs being a form of language compression.
quirino•16 minutes ago
3Blue1Brown just released a viduo about this Intelligence-Compression connection.
The idea was fresh in my mind because I watched this yesterday. Great video, the illustrations and intuition-building of the compressability of information was so good! I'm so grateful for 3Blue1Brown.
I once interviewed for a company and the interviewer was telling me how he (a vc) funded a project to generate large streams of random numbers; you would select an index at random, share that private key with somebody, and then the subsequent text could be used as a one-time-pad. NSA would be forced to buffer/save the entire stream, which could be generated at GB/sec, if they wanted to decrypt.
It didn't seem very practical.
adzm•about 2 hours ago
It is worth noting that as the length of data increases it becomes extremely unlikely that the index and length of the sequence within pi would actually be smaller than the data.
Aloisius•about 2 hours ago
That seems easy enough to solve. Simply record the index and length in pi of the index and length in pi.
awesome_dude•about 2 hours ago
See also: Recursion
dietr1ch•about 1 hour ago
See also: Recursion
liamYC•19 minutes ago
Point taken about the index potentially being really long. Why would the length be longer than the data? Don’t you need to find the right sequence?
mondrian•about 2 hours ago
The index of your 20 line file is <20TB number>
russfink•7 minutes ago
Unless, in turn, you locate the index itself in pi at a much smaller index. And so on...
Find k candidate indices for your data, then locate each of them. If the smallest one is a significantly smaller index space, repeat.
12_throw_away•about 2 hours ago
yes I believe that's the joke
jwpapi•about 2 hours ago
He’s aware, he just added some curious information.
I looked into this a bit a while ago, what Sloot did was at least a bit novel. Basically the way his encoding scheme actually worked was that it would store each line of video into a database, encode each video frame as a series of line lookups, and then store that encoded frame into another database. Then each video is a series of frame lookups. When you hear accounts of him being able to demo smooth playback of 16 videos at once on late 90s hardware, this is how he did it. Because each frame is a series of line lookups, splitting the screen horizontally 16 times and playing 16 videos at once is not any more taxing than playing a single video fullscreen. Similarly, he was able to fast-forward and rewind smoothly because each frame is individually decoded, it's not like traditional video compression where you have to calculate differences from each keyframe. Playing at 2x speed was not any more taxing than 1x speed. Of course he never would have been able to store a video file in 8KB or whatever, but this meant that (for example) if you had a whole season of a TV show in your database, the opening and ending credits would only be stored once.
Levitating•about 1 hour ago
> The SDCS is only possible if keys are allowed to become infinite, or the data store is allowed to become infinite (...) This would, of course, make the idea useless.
But Pi is infinite. And thus this genius contraption will work as long as we have Moore's law on our side :)
beng-nl•about 1 hour ago
I have very fond memories of reading that book.
giancarlostoro•about 2 hours ago
Never heard of that one, that's amazing! Love it.
bilsbie•13 minutes ago
I’d guess even the index in pi for my phone number would be more digits than the phone number.
So not really a compression scheme.
nyc_pizzadev•34 minutes ago
Just a heads up, this is writing 16 bits for every 8 bits of input:
This is disturbing to realize that pi then contains all the past and future knowledge, including when I'll pass away.
mike_hock•about 2 hours ago
So does every other random infinite sequence of bits. The unintuitive part comes from infinity, not pi.
It also doesn't contain all past and future knowledge because it also contains all possible falsehoods about the past and future in a way that's indiscernible from the truth.
Encoding information as an offset into a pseudorandom sequence is no more storage efficient than storing the information directly.
sph•about 2 hours ago
Are you aware this is meant as a joke, right?
LoganDark•about 1 hour ago
Jokes can be educational too.
nosioptar•about 2 hours ago
The worst part is that it contains Star Wars 4-6 from an alternate timeline where Disney did a reboot casting Chris Pratt as Han Solo.
(Fun fact: "Chrispratt" is an ancient Californian word that means "Joel McHale didn't want the role.")
Yokohiii•about 1 hour ago
Around here it just means chrisp ratt.
1attice•about 2 hours ago
Thank you for this Prattfall
arialdomartini•42 minutes ago
You will love reading Jorge Borges The Library of Babel.
The person who starts reading ahead into pi will always gets the freshest numbers.
Perfect crypto!
xp84•about 1 hour ago
If it makes you feel better, consider that it also contains all plausible and implausible falsehoods about your demise as well.
cadamsdotcom•about 2 hours ago
Fear not! It’s probably so deep in pi that you’d pass away listening to someone tell you where!
thih9•about 2 hours ago
It also contains all possible falsehoods and comes with no way to distinguish what's true from what isn't.
vadansky•about 1 hour ago
But enough about LLMs
OkayPhysicist•about 2 hours ago
So does a calendar, if you you buy them enough years in advance.
nighthawk454•about 2 hours ago
And also all the days you don’t, so, by itself not very meaningful. Especially since you can’t tell which one is right in advance. In some sense, so does a calendar
skulk•about 2 hours ago
this statement is equivalent to "pi is a normal number." While most real numbers are normal and pi is suspected to be so, it isn't known.
I vaguely remember an entry to a compression-benchmark that gamed the benchmark by treating the filename as part of the input to the decompression-algorithm, thus beating the metric that only measured the size of the file.
partsch•about 3 hours ago
Finally, someone is doing something about the rising prices of storage!
Advertisement
z3t4•29 minutes ago
Someone should make a service "where in the pi am I" then you could use it as a short link. Then there will be hardware accelerated pi chips. All computers will come with pi preinstalled.
chris_sn•27 minutes ago
Funnily enough I’m reading Service Model and just got to the bit in the Library Archive, which has a very similar vibe to this project. Love it
> Matches that occur early enough in π to attain significant compression will not be varied. That is, it isn't possible to use π to compress interesting, real-world data because real-word strings are unlikely to arise early.
Levitating•about 2 hours ago
> Since the file is 128 bits long, one would expect this place to be around the 2*128th bit.
> Calculate the number of bits to encode that value using log2(938933556), which is ~29.8
Can someone explain these two statements to me?
csunoser•about 1 hour ago
for
> Calculate the number of bits to encode that value using log2(938933556), which is ~29.8
This is roughly same as saying: "If you rewrite 938933556 as a binary number / usize, it will need 30 bits".
Sanity check: 1101111111|0110111111|0100110100 (| delimits every 10 bigits).
> Since the file is 128 bits long, one would expect this place to be around the 2*128th bit.
This statement is a bit more subtle. As a first ord approximation, we can see pi sort of as a RNG.
If we write pi (ignore the decimal point), as a binary number, we get:
11011001111111011110010101011110001010101111101101110001001100001...
You can... kind of squint and pretend this is a random sequence of 1s and 0s.
Now, if you had a file that is 128 bits (so lots of intermingling 0s and 1s), and each next digit of pi is effectively a coin flip. Pretend 1s are heads, and 0s are tails. You basically have to get the exact 128 consecutive coin flips of the same result as your file to get your file back.
Imagine now, PI not as a number, but a sequence of experiments of flipping the coin 128 times.
You have to try, on expectation, quite a few times to win this game! Now, you could easily get lucky for sure. But on average, your chance of winning per attempt is roughly 0.5^128! So, how many times do you have to try to win this game? Something like 2^128 times - and you have to consider that each attempt uses 128 bits as well. So more like 2^135. But you don't have to start fresh in each attempt, you can see it as like this:
- 11011................00100...
- ( 128 flips )
- ( another 128 )
- ( )
- ... so on and so on
use this number as a shorter nibble storage alternative...
actusual•about 1 hour ago
This is why I got pi tattooed. It's a tattoo of all tattoos.
Advertisement
hnlmorg•about 2 hours ago
This is probably a dumb question, but do we actually know that pi has an infinite number of decimal digits or are we assuming that it does because we haven’t developed a sufficiently powerful computer to calculate the last digit of pi?
I’m guessing this is something that could be formally proven?
For a superb explanation of Niven's proof (which leaves more questions than answers when you first read it), I like Michael Penn's video: https://youtu.be/dFKbVTHK4tU?is=d2DbV5HDP0IpP9tA ....notwithstanding the length of the proof, this is quite a hard problem.
partsch•about 2 hours ago
Thanks for the PDF. I feel like I understand even less now than I did before.
hnlmorg•about 2 hours ago
Thanks for sharing. That’s a nice read. I’m glad I asked :)
stackghost•about 2 hours ago
It's amazing how inscrutable calculus can be when you return to reading it after not doing so for a period of time, much like lisp or forth. I don't think I've actually done an integral or taken a derivative in years. I can see the elegance of that proof but I'll be damned if I can actually follow the mathematics from one step to the next.
mike_hock•about 2 hours ago
We definitely know that Pi is irrational, we just don't know if it's normal (i.e. if the PiFS joke even works).
pixel_popping•about 2 hours ago
Well, that should get GPT-5.5 extended thinking going for a few weeks.
adzm•about 2 hours ago
I'm intrigued that π was capitalized to Π presumably automatically in the HN headline.
cbm-vic-20•about 2 hours ago
jshell> "πfs".toUpperCase()
$1 ==> "ΠFS"
Welcome to Node.js v26.3.0.
Type ".help" for more information.
> "πfs".toUpperCase()
'ΠFS'
Python 3.14.5 (main, May 10 2026, 10:21:34) [Clang 21.0.0 (clang-2100.0.123.102)] on darwin
Type "help", "copyright", "credits" or "license" for more information.
>>> "πfs".upper()
'ΠFS'
echo 'πfs' | awk '{print toupper($0)}'
ΠFS
noman-land•about 2 hours ago
Why does your Python terminal report May 10th? Today is June 10th.
atvrager•about 1 hour ago
It's the build date of their Python binary
Yokohiii•about 1 hour ago
He prepared the comment a month ago.
danlitt•about 1 hour ago
Probably daylight savings
amluto•about 2 hours ago
> Why is this thing so slow? It took me five minutes to store a 400 line text file!
> Well, this is just an initial prototype, and don't worry, there's always Moore's law!
Seriously? They're only storing individual bytes in pi:
> In this implementation, to maximise performance, we consider each individual byte of the file separately, and look it up in π.
So the whole transformation should be trivially reducible to a 256-element lookup table from source byte to location in pi and a similar table used to convert back the other way. Maybe a fancy formula could be used for the (never actually encountered) case in which a byte is encoded by one of the infinite available noncanonical encodings.
glitchc•about 2 hours ago
At what point is the metadata larger than the actual file?
wavemode•about 2 hours ago
Part of the joke is that, in this implementation, the metadata is guaranteed to be larger than the file:
> Now, we all know that it can take a while to find a long sequence of digits in π, so for practical reasons, we should break the files up into smaller chunks that can be more readily found.
> In this implementation, to maximise performance, we consider each individual byte of the file separately, and look it up in π.
It is actually not proven that the decimal expansion (or any rational base expansion) of pi contains all possible sequences of numbers. It sounds like it intuitively would be since the expansion is infinite, but it is not necessarily true. For example, the number 0.101001... (i.e., decimal formed by concatenating N zeros and then 1 for all N 0 to infinity) is infinite, never-ending, and irrational but does not contain every sequence of numbers.
leephillips•about 2 hours ago
What a brilliant idea! Of course, of course, it’s not in the repository so I can’t apt-get install it. Debian...always so far behind.
j3th9n•about 2 hours ago
Why would anyone need πfs, since you can already build such a system yourself quite trivially on Linux.
Levitating•about 3 hours ago
absolutely genius
mzelling•about 1 hour ago
Looked at the repo but it says NOTHING about what value this project offers.
I mean, I get that it's "fun" to store information within the digits of pi. But is this just amusement, or is there a value prop for production use here?
(Speaking as a math major, by the way. I'm sympathetic to the cause.)
windward•20 minutes ago
It's a(n IMO weak) argument raised when discussing illegal files/numbers.
This project makes clear the counter-argument: the input that gets you the file out of π is a badly compressed version of the file.
tcoff91•about 1 hour ago
I think it's pretty clearly for amusement. And it would kind of spoil the amusement if it were to explicitly mention that it's a joke...
mherkender•about 1 hour ago
It's a joke.
Advertisement
spchampion2•about 1 hour ago
This is interesting, but I feel like my use cases would better align with a different irrational number. Could I get an option to do this with e instead? /s
Discussion (99 Comments)Read Original on HackerNews
The conclusion being that you basically need the same amount of data to represent the address of your data as the data itself, so it's not really effective at compression, just a fun thought experiment.
The cool part of this in modern times is that LLMs are basically a form of lossy compression that actually achieves the gist of what these tools fail at. Although it is lossy, and requires a massive substrate. This is related to the idea of AI/LLMs being a form of language compression.
https://youtu.be/l6DKRf-fAAM
It didn't seem very practical.
Find k candidate indices for your data, then locate each of them. If the smallest one is a significantly smaller index space, repeat.
πfs – A data-free filesystem - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36357466 - June 2023 (107 comments)
πfs – A data-free filesystem - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28699499 - Sept 2021 (30 comments)
PiFS – The Data-Free Filesystem - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26208704 - Feb 2021 (1 comment)
Πfs: Never worry about data again - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21359338 - Oct 2019 (1 comment)
The π Filesystem for FUSE: Store Your Data in π - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19223032 - Feb 2019 (1 comment)
pifs - Avoid disk space usage by saving your files in the digits of Pi - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18687275 - Dec 2018 (1 comment)
πfs – A data-free filesystem - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13869691 - March 2017 (105 comments)
Πfs: Stores your data in π - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10856108 - Jan 2016 (1 comment)
Πfs: Never worry about data again - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10847693 - Jan 2016 (1 comment)
File system that stores location of file in Pi - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8018818 - July 2014 (98 comments)
100% Compression Using Pi - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6698852 - Nov 2013 (32 comments)
(Reposts are fine after a year or so; links to past threads are just to satisfy extra-curious readers)
https://news.ycombinator.com/from?site=github.com/philipl
conjectured
Glad to see one of my pet points of pedantry come up. No non-constructed irrational number has never been proven to be normal or disjunctive.
Further reading: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sloot_Digital_Coding_System
But Pi is infinite. And thus this genius contraption will work as long as we have Moore's law on our side :)
So not really a compression scheme.
https://github.com/philipl/pifs/blob/fded8bf7b8f4fc64233e37b...
It also doesn't contain all past and future knowledge because it also contains all possible falsehoods about the past and future in a way that's indiscernible from the truth.
Encoding information as an offset into a pseudorandom sequence is no more storage efficient than storing the information directly.
(Fun fact: "Chrispratt" is an ancient Californian word that means "Joel McHale didn't want the role.")
https://dn760100.eu.archive.org/0/items/TheLibraryOfBabel/ba...
Perfect crypto!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Normal_number
[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JcJSW7Rprio
> Matches that occur early enough in π to attain significant compression will not be varied. That is, it isn't possible to use π to compress interesting, real-world data because real-word strings are unlikely to arise early.
> Calculate the number of bits to encode that value using log2(938933556), which is ~29.8
Can someone explain these two statements to me?
This is roughly same as saying: "If you rewrite 938933556 as a binary number / usize, it will need 30 bits".
Sanity check: 1101111111|0110111111|0100110100 (| delimits every 10 bigits).
> Since the file is 128 bits long, one would expect this place to be around the 2*128th bit.
This statement is a bit more subtle. As a first ord approximation, we can see pi sort of as a RNG.
If we write pi (ignore the decimal point), as a binary number, we get: 11011001111111011110010101011110001010101111101101110001001100001...
You can... kind of squint and pretend this is a random sequence of 1s and 0s.
Now, if you had a file that is 128 bits (so lots of intermingling 0s and 1s), and each next digit of pi is effectively a coin flip. Pretend 1s are heads, and 0s are tails. You basically have to get the exact 128 consecutive coin flips of the same result as your file to get your file back.
Imagine now, PI not as a number, but a sequence of experiments of flipping the coin 128 times.
You have to try, on expectation, quite a few times to win this game! Now, you could easily get lucky for sure. But on average, your chance of winning per attempt is roughly 0.5^128! So, how many times do you have to try to win this game? Something like 2^128 times - and you have to consider that each attempt uses 128 bits as well. So more like 2^135. But you don't have to start fresh in each attempt, you can see it as like this: That's where the 2^128 number came from.3._1_415926535897932384626433832795_0_288419716939
0x123456789ABCDEF0
use this number as a shorter nibble storage alternative...
I’m guessing this is something that could be formally proven?
> Well, this is just an initial prototype, and don't worry, there's always Moore's law!
Seriously? They're only storing individual bytes in pi:
> In this implementation, to maximise performance, we consider each individual byte of the file separately, and look it up in π.
So the whole transformation should be trivially reducible to a 256-element lookup table from source byte to location in pi and a similar table used to convert back the other way. Maybe a fancy formula could be used for the (never actually encountered) case in which a byte is encoded by one of the infinite available noncanonical encodings.
> Now, we all know that it can take a while to find a long sequence of digits in π, so for practical reasons, we should break the files up into smaller chunks that can be more readily found.
> In this implementation, to maximise performance, we consider each individual byte of the file separately, and look it up in π.
My favourite issue being about GDPR compliance https://github.com/philipl/pifs/issues/56
I mean, I get that it's "fun" to store information within the digits of pi. But is this just amusement, or is there a value prop for production use here?
(Speaking as a math major, by the way. I'm sympathetic to the cause.)
This project makes clear the counter-argument: the input that gets you the file out of π is a badly compressed version of the file.