Infinite Compression Explained

Because most of you don't read my blog,(i don't read random blogs as well) and have so much questions about what i'm doing with my programs, i'll write it here:
All of the programs(about 6 developed so far) despite wildly varying routines are targeted to generate large integers.
These integers are not files. Following transformations occurs:
encode
1.file is converted to large integer X(arbitrary length).
2.X multiplied by some scale factor e.g. 10e1000 to get a lower bound
2.(X+1)by some scale factor e.g. 10e1000 to get an uppper bound
3.a search is performed for finding numbers inside that range which are easy to represent via formula.
4.if number(s) found its saved to a file.
decode:
1.a formula is supplied with number(s) and filesize
2.the formula generates an integer/float, which is then divided by scale factor(e.g. 10e1000).
3.the first filesize bytes are then written to output.

the proces isn't perfected yet, because the formulas currently used in my programs either too slow to search or cuttoff at float precision(for non-integer parameters)
________________________________________________
http://xs135.xs.to/xs135/09042/av922.jpg
orbis terrarum delenda est

0. v: positive integer
1. v = i/d
2. j = i + d
3. i <= k <= j
4. k -> v
5. size(k) <= size(v)


Is what you suggest. For all v?! This simple algorithm, you suppose, has never been thought by anyone else, it is now conceived by you, in a moment of epiphany after reading SICP no doubt, and now, after possessing such knowledge, you FOUND THE ALGORITHM THAT NOT ONLY REPRESENTS ANY NUMBER IN LESS BITS, BUT IT ALSO RUNS FAST! WOW! You also want us to accept it as is, and you don't provide any proof, formal or informal. IN FACT, YOU DON'T PROVIDE EVEN A HINT THAT YOU'VE DONE SUCH WORK OR THINKING.


A CROOK, YOU ARE.

>>11
I appreciate only constructive criticism
I appreciate people who admit their mistakes.

The programs are in development.
Programs? There's many of them? What's the difference of each?

When the final program will be ready, it will be optimized and work seamlessly.
What optimization methods do you have in mind? *WHY* will it work seamlessly? Is this a guarantee coming from you or you actually have some evidence for this? You seem certain about something you have no proof of. That's a belief, a delusion. Remember when I said that some posts ago?

I looked at your code, and I can't read it. I don't plan to learn about a bignum library and reindent your code just to show you this which you're trying to do can't work. Plus, your code has many bugs and I'm wondering if you can write C without bugs at all.