Community

Want to learn how to tackle those tough AMC/AIME/Olympiad algebra problems? Check out Art of Problem Solving's Intermediate Algebra by Richard Rusczyk and Mathew Crawford. Over 1600 problems!
Login Register Memberlist Search AoPS Blogs Contests Galleries Forum Index
The time now is Wed Nov 25, 2009 10:45 am
All times are UTC - 8
View posts since last visit
View unanswered posts
easy coding theory prob
Moderators: College Playground Moderators
Post new topic   Reply to topic View previous topicView next topic
3 Posts • Page 1 of 1
Author Message
luther_driggers
New Member
New Member

Offline
Joined: 10 Dec 2004
Posts: 19
Canada

To rate posts you must be logged in
#1
easy coding theory prob
homework

The question in the book says : Determine the smallest integer n for which a single-error correcting binary linear code of block length n carrying 62 bits of information per codeword can be constructed.

This mean we need distance 3 which leads me to believe that the question is asking for the corresponding Hamming code. Meaning that I would solve n=\frac{2^{n-62}-1}{2-1} \Rightarrow n=68. The problem is that I have no way to show that I couldn't do it with a smaller n. Any suggestions? Is this a well known fact, because it's not explicit in my text book.

Basically I'm looking for a matrix of the form H=[A_{62 \times n-62} I_{62} ] with coefficients in Z_2 and no two columns of H are linearly dependent and n is as small as possible.... maybe it's just obvious that n \not<  68

PostPosted: Mon Feb 14, 2005 9:44 pm  Back to top 
  ProfilePM
jmerry
Birch & Swinnerton Dyer
Birch & Swinnerton Dyer


Offline
Joined: 12 Jun 2004
Posts: 7467
Location: Seattle
United States

To rate posts you must be logged in
#2
In order to carry 62 bits of information in the n-bit error-correcting code, we must place 2^{62} disjoint unit balls in the n-dimensional hypercube. Each ball has n+1 elements, so \frac{2^n}{n+1}\ge 2^{62}. This gives 2^{n-62}\ge n+1, which is true when n>68.

You can't do it with 68 or fewer bits. You should be able to do it with 69.

PostPosted: Mon Feb 14, 2005 9:55 pm  Back to top 
  ProfilePM
luther_driggers
New Member
New Member

Offline
Joined: 10 Dec 2004
Posts: 19
Canada

To rate posts you must be logged in
#3
thankyou. btw sorry about the 68 - i was comparing to k for some reason

2^{68-62}-1=63

which isn't even what i thought i was looking for. Blush

Your argument is clear.

PostPosted: Wed Feb 16, 2005 12:02 am  Back to top 
  ProfilePM
Display posts from previous:   Sort by:   
3 Posts • Page 1 of 1
Post new topic   Reply to topic View previous topicView next topic
Jump to:  

You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum
You cannot post calendar events in this forum


© Copyright 2008 AoPS Incorporated. All Rights Reserved. • FoundationPrivacyContact Us