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

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:
Questions from who? Let me understand, because we DON'T read your blog, you post your blogs content here, because we read /prog/, and therefore we'll also read your blogs content. Am I right on this?

file is converted to large integer X(arbitrary length).
By which method? Do you have arbitrary time and memory as well?

2.(X+1)by some scale factor e.g. 10e1000 to get an uppper bound

You have two steps labeled '2'. What is the meaning of this? What does this sentence say? I don't understand it. by some scalar factor what?

3.a search is performed for finding numbers inside that range which are easy to represent via formula.
You're going to search the representation of a number for known patterns then? This method can't be infinitely applied.


Sorry, you're wack. Your algorithm does not work, and it's certainly not 'infinite'.