Timeline for Finding the overhead and distance of an unknown code based on message making algorithm
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
18 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Apr 14, 2019 at 17:37 | vote | accept | hps13 | ||
| Apr 10, 2019 at 16:24 | answer | added | MBaz | timeline score: 0 | |
| Apr 10, 2019 at 15:51 | comment | added | hps13 | i understood that the question is not about hamming, and that i inferred it wrong based on the detection of up to 1 error. so do i have all the means to calculate the distance and the overhead according to the given details or is there any information missing? | |
| Apr 10, 2019 at 15:49 | comment | added | Peter Smith | I would note that although such things are unlikely, parity can detect any odd number of bits in error (as might happen in a burst error scenario). | |
| Apr 10, 2019 at 15:45 | history | edited | hps13 | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
understood that it is not about hamming, but about parity bit like mentioned in the comments
|
| Apr 10, 2019 at 15:44 | comment | added | hps13 | for clarity: in the beginning based on the question i thought it's about hamming code, but it seems to be about parity bit as i can detect up to one error, but from the details of the question i really don't know. what do you think? | |
| Apr 10, 2019 at 15:43 | comment | added | hps13 | @MBaz: what i meant is this, and sorry if english is not my native language: information word M is coded to word A using an unknown code(we don't know what the code is) that allows detection of up to one error. the code word is the word obtained by concatenating A to itself, i.e AA. then asked if we can know the overhead or the distance of the code, and if not for either - what information is missing. what i tried to give is reasoning for my calculations: the distance being 2A and the maximum amount of errors i can detect is minimal distance -1. i am also editing my post now | |
| Apr 9, 2019 at 19:56 | comment | added | MBaz | "...using an unkown code..." and "...the codeword is obtained by concatenation of A with itself..." are contradictory: you seem to know the code. Can you clarify? | |
| Apr 8, 2019 at 11:44 | comment | added | Oldfart | It is a long time ago since I did FEC theory, but I know that a parity bit is all you need to detect one and only one error. In fact a parity bit is equal to a one bit CRC. You can have even or odd parity, but you still need only one bit. Now I get into less certain area so don't hold me on this: That would make A one bit bigger then M and AA would be 2x(bits in M)+2. Thus you go from (bits in M) to 2x(bits in M)+2. I have not idea what the hamming distance of AA would be.... | |
| Apr 8, 2019 at 9:50 | comment | added | hps13 | @oldfart what information is missing in order to calculate or obtain the overhead? | |
| Apr 7, 2019 at 15:41 | comment | added | hps13 | the problem is that none of these details are given. because it allows detection of not more than one bit, maybe they mean CRC and not hamming? i am really unsure and i don't know how to calculate the overhead or distance with the given details. is there a trick here? | |
| Apr 7, 2019 at 15:36 | comment | added | Oldfart | A parity bit would suffice then. | |
| Apr 7, 2019 at 15:29 | comment | added | hps13 | actually no, it says detection of up to one error. doesn't talk about the correction. i thought it's about hamming because of this detail | |
| Apr 7, 2019 at 14:02 | history | edited | JRE | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 3 characters in body; edited title
|
| Apr 7, 2019 at 13:58 | comment | added | Dave Tweed | Not sure about "detection of not more than one error" -- did you mean "correction"? | |
| Apr 7, 2019 at 13:53 | history | edited | Dave Tweed | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
fix formatting
|
| Apr 7, 2019 at 13:50 | review | First posts | |||
| Apr 7, 2019 at 14:06 | |||||
| Apr 7, 2019 at 13:45 | history | asked | hps13 | CC BY-SA 4.0 |