1
00:00:00,000 --> 00:00:01,196
PROFESSOR: All right, I
thought he would be.

2
00:00:01,196 --> 00:00:04,200
It's always a hazard putting
up somebody who you know is

3
00:00:04,200 --> 00:00:07,200
going to lecture better
than you do.

4
00:00:07,200 --> 00:00:10,080
But I hope that was a
good change of pace.

5
00:00:10,080 --> 00:00:13,070
And, of course, he knows more
about the subject of

6
00:00:13,070 --> 00:00:15,660
Reed-Solomon decoding than I
or more than practically

7
00:00:15,660 --> 00:00:18,860
anyone else does, so --

8
00:00:18,860 --> 00:00:21,130
did he have much time to
talk about decoding or

9
00:00:21,130 --> 00:00:22,730
was the most -- yeah.

10
00:00:22,730 --> 00:00:25,190
Talked about the decoding
algorithms, Sudan-type

11
00:00:25,190 --> 00:00:26,762
decoding algorithms.

12
00:00:26,762 --> 00:00:28,180
Yeah?

13
00:00:28,180 --> 00:00:29,070
OK.

14
00:00:29,070 --> 00:00:29,850
Good.

15
00:00:29,850 --> 00:00:32,650
Well, in fact, he covered so
much that I don't have much

16
00:00:32,650 --> 00:00:34,000
left to do today.

17
00:00:37,110 --> 00:00:41,280
I remind you, Ashish
put out an email.

18
00:00:41,280 --> 00:00:44,960
There's a review session
tomorrow for the midterm from

19
00:00:44,960 --> 00:00:49,760
5 to 7 in a different
room, 36-112.

20
00:00:49,760 --> 00:00:52,460
The midterm is Wednesday
in this room.

21
00:00:52,460 --> 00:00:56,180
It starts at 9:05 to give
you a little bit more

22
00:00:56,180 --> 00:00:58,400
time to work on it.

23
00:00:58,400 --> 00:01:02,880
It's closed book except that
you're allowed to make up

24
00:01:02,880 --> 00:01:07,280
three normal size
sheets of notes.

25
00:01:07,280 --> 00:01:10,830
You can write as small
as you like.

26
00:01:10,830 --> 00:01:14,920
This experience has shown this
is the very best way of

27
00:01:14,920 --> 00:01:18,380
getting you to consolidate what
you've learned up to this

28
00:01:18,380 --> 00:01:21,920
point, is writing your own
three-page precis of the

29
00:01:21,920 --> 00:01:23,090
course to date.

30
00:01:23,090 --> 00:01:24,115
So, yes?

31
00:01:24,115 --> 00:01:26,352
AUDIENCE: [INAUDIBLE]?

32
00:01:26,352 --> 00:01:27,680
PROFESSOR: What is
the rule, both --

33
00:01:27,680 --> 00:01:28,596
what?

34
00:01:28,596 --> 00:01:29,970
AUDIENCE: Both sides.

35
00:01:29,970 --> 00:01:30,950
PROFESSOR: Both sides.

36
00:01:30,950 --> 00:01:32,070
All right.

37
00:01:32,070 --> 00:01:33,746
Six sheets.

38
00:01:33,746 --> 00:01:36,640
If you can't write down the
whole course in six sheets,

39
00:01:36,640 --> 00:01:40,520
then, well, you haven't
been paying attention.

40
00:01:44,200 --> 00:01:46,030
OK.

41
00:01:46,030 --> 00:01:48,880
And you can bring calculators,
but we don't

42
00:01:48,880 --> 00:01:51,110
expect they'll be useful.

43
00:01:51,110 --> 00:01:53,940
Please erase any erasable will
memories if you do bring

44
00:01:53,940 --> 00:01:55,320
calculators.

45
00:01:55,320 --> 00:01:57,190
These are things we tell
undergraduates.

46
00:01:57,190 --> 00:01:59,390
I guess they hardly
seem necessary

47
00:01:59,390 --> 00:02:02,070
in a graduate course.

48
00:02:02,070 --> 00:02:05,500
Any other questions about the
logistics of the midterm?

49
00:02:05,500 --> 00:02:10,738
AUDIENCE: What is the material
going to be for the midterm?

50
00:02:10,738 --> 00:02:14,820
PROFESSOR: Everything that's
been covered up to today.

51
00:02:14,820 --> 00:02:16,440
I won't hold you responsible
for anything I've

52
00:02:16,440 --> 00:02:17,760
talked about today.

53
00:02:17,760 --> 00:02:19,750
So it's basically chapters
one through eight.

54
00:02:24,650 --> 00:02:27,510
I really will only hold you
responsible for what we

55
00:02:27,510 --> 00:02:30,790
covered in class, which chapters
one, two, and three

56
00:02:30,790 --> 00:02:35,760
were so brief, you can't say
we really covered them.

57
00:02:35,760 --> 00:02:37,703
So really, chapters four
through eight.

58
00:02:42,633 --> 00:02:45,560
Any other questions?

59
00:02:45,560 --> 00:02:46,040
All right.

60
00:02:46,040 --> 00:02:48,160
You'll have more chance
as we go along.

61
00:02:52,170 --> 00:02:59,210
So as I say, Ralf really covered
the main things about

62
00:02:59,210 --> 00:03:05,240
Reed-Solomon codes, which are
the crowning achievement of

63
00:03:05,240 --> 00:03:07,480
algebraic coding theory.

64
00:03:07,480 --> 00:03:12,180
They have a lot of favorable
attributes.

65
00:03:12,180 --> 00:03:20,280
They are optimum, from an n,
k, d point of view, in the

66
00:03:20,280 --> 00:03:26,500
sense that they're maximum
distance separable.

67
00:03:26,500 --> 00:03:29,520
The parameters are as good as
they possibly could be by this

68
00:03:29,520 --> 00:03:33,360
very basic Singleton bound.

69
00:03:33,360 --> 00:03:37,320
They have efficient algebraic
decoding algorithms.

70
00:03:42,130 --> 00:03:48,170
And traditionally, this has
meant hard decision bounded

71
00:03:48,170 --> 00:03:52,030
distance decoding algorithms
like the Welch-Berlekamp

72
00:03:52,030 --> 00:03:53,750
algorithm or the
Berlekamp-Massey match

73
00:03:53,750 --> 00:03:59,390
algorithm, which take hard
decisions in, put hard

74
00:03:59,390 --> 00:04:03,360
decisions on symbols out.

75
00:04:03,360 --> 00:04:07,210
But as Ralf suggested to you,
now there are algorithms that

76
00:04:07,210 --> 00:04:11,800
can use soft decisions in,
produce a list, at least,

77
00:04:11,800 --> 00:04:15,880
coming out, some indication
of the reliability of each

78
00:04:15,880 --> 00:04:17,980
element of the list.

79
00:04:17,980 --> 00:04:20,410
So they've been softened up.

80
00:04:23,080 --> 00:04:29,480
Nonetheless, what are the
negatives is, basically, that

81
00:04:29,480 --> 00:04:36,760
they work on bytes, or
symbols, not bits.

82
00:04:40,130 --> 00:04:44,080
So if we have a basically binary
channel, as we very

83
00:04:44,080 --> 00:04:50,970
frequently do, then they need
something else to make them

84
00:04:50,970 --> 00:04:54,920
adapted to the binary channel,
or even on the additive white

85
00:04:54,920 --> 00:04:56,060
Gaussian noise channel.

86
00:04:56,060 --> 00:04:58,740
I don't think we've gone through
the calculation.

87
00:04:58,740 --> 00:05:07,100
You could think of sending q or
e symbols over the additive

88
00:05:07,100 --> 00:05:09,240
white Gaussian noise channel,
but what would you need?

89
00:05:09,240 --> 00:05:12,490
You would need a q
or e signal set.

90
00:05:12,490 --> 00:05:17,430
Now, if you pick that to be a
q simplex signals set or a

91
00:05:17,430 --> 00:05:20,040
orthogonal or biorthogonal
signal set, then that might

92
00:05:20,040 --> 00:05:23,530
work because the distance
structure of such a signal set

93
00:05:23,530 --> 00:05:26,900
is like the Hamming distance
structure in GF of q.

94
00:05:29,650 --> 00:05:31,960
In other words, it's
approximately equally likely

95
00:05:31,960 --> 00:05:36,330
to make an error to
any other symbol.

96
00:05:36,330 --> 00:05:39,910
The symbols are more or less
equally spread apart in

97
00:05:39,910 --> 00:05:40,890
Euclidean space.

98
00:05:40,890 --> 00:05:46,130
Just as when we count distance
in Hamming space, we give the

99
00:05:46,130 --> 00:05:49,880
same weight to each possible
kind of error or each possible

100
00:05:49,880 --> 00:05:51,610
kind of symbol difference.

101
00:05:51,610 --> 00:05:56,820
So if you did that,
then Reed-Solomon

102
00:05:56,820 --> 00:05:58,240
codes might work well.

103
00:05:58,240 --> 00:06:01,670
That's one form of a
concatenated scheme, which I

104
00:06:01,670 --> 00:06:04,290
will talk about in
just a second.

105
00:06:04,290 --> 00:06:08,350
But if you tried to apply
Reed-Solomon codes to a binary

106
00:06:08,350 --> 00:06:11,266
input additive white Gaussian
noise channel, just translate

107
00:06:11,266 --> 00:06:16,150
the, say, 8-bit bytes into bits
and send them one bit at

108
00:06:16,150 --> 00:06:20,680
a time, then the distance
structures don't

109
00:06:20,680 --> 00:06:21,840
correspond at all well.

110
00:06:21,840 --> 00:06:25,580
It's much more likely to make
a single bit error than an

111
00:06:25,580 --> 00:06:28,270
error that involves all eight
bits or something.

112
00:06:28,270 --> 00:06:33,700
And for that fundamental reason,
you'll find that

113
00:06:33,700 --> 00:06:36,500
performance is not so great.

114
00:06:36,500 --> 00:06:41,330
And certainly, this is not the
way to get to capacity all by

115
00:06:41,330 --> 00:06:45,370
itself unless it's married
with something else.

116
00:06:45,370 --> 00:06:48,590
So that's something we always
have to deal with in another

117
00:06:48,590 --> 00:06:51,300
applications, as I will talk
about in a minute.

118
00:06:51,300 --> 00:06:54,470
We naturally do want
to correct bytes,

119
00:06:54,470 --> 00:06:57,210
or symbols, or blocks.

120
00:06:57,210 --> 00:06:59,950
There are many bits.

121
00:06:59,950 --> 00:07:03,770
And then Reed-Solomon codes are
just exactly what we want.

122
00:07:03,770 --> 00:07:07,570
They're optimal in any
such situation.

123
00:07:07,570 --> 00:07:09,280
And so what did I just say?

124
00:07:09,280 --> 00:07:16,520
They're not the way to get to
capacity, although they are

125
00:07:16,520 --> 00:07:21,930
sometimes part of schemes
for getting to capacity.

126
00:07:21,930 --> 00:07:24,930
And since getting to capacity in
the additive white Gaussian

127
00:07:24,930 --> 00:07:29,780
noise channel is the theme of
this course, then they play

128
00:07:29,780 --> 00:07:33,440
only a peripheral role
in that theme.

129
00:07:33,440 --> 00:07:35,750
Nonetheless, they're
great codes.

130
00:07:35,750 --> 00:07:37,580
They're in wide use.

131
00:07:37,580 --> 00:07:39,960
They're part of every
semiconductor manufacturer's

132
00:07:39,960 --> 00:07:41,400
core library.

133
00:07:41,400 --> 00:07:51,220
You can buy (255,223) distance
33, 16 error correcting

134
00:07:51,220 --> 00:07:56,250
Reed-Solomon decoder in part of
any chip package and it'll

135
00:07:56,250 --> 00:08:00,260
go at gigabits nowadays.

136
00:08:00,260 --> 00:08:04,640
So it's kind of the all-purpose
error correcting

137
00:08:04,640 --> 00:08:09,540
code, with the caveat that you
need to somehow get what you

138
00:08:09,540 --> 00:08:15,320
correct to be bytes rather
than bits, OK?

139
00:08:15,320 --> 00:08:23,200
So today I thought I'd cover the
last two topics in chapter

140
00:08:23,200 --> 00:08:32,400
eight and maybe, to the extent
that time permits, go back to

141
00:08:32,400 --> 00:08:35,106
chapter seven.

142
00:08:35,106 --> 00:08:39,530
But we'll see how we
feel about that.

143
00:08:39,530 --> 00:08:41,719
Applications of Reed-Solomon
codes.

144
00:08:45,470 --> 00:08:51,100
OK, basically, you can apply
them wherever you want to

145
00:08:51,100 --> 00:08:58,690
correct blocks, rather than bits
or packets or n-tuples or

146
00:08:58,690 --> 00:09:00,990
what have you.

147
00:09:00,990 --> 00:09:06,860
So one obvious application is,
when you send packets through

148
00:09:06,860 --> 00:09:22,510
the internet, if you use
Reed-Solomon codes across the

149
00:09:22,510 --> 00:09:30,820
packet, then you can correct
errors that occur in

150
00:09:30,820 --> 00:09:33,020
individual packets.

151
00:09:33,020 --> 00:09:35,950
This is not the way the internet
usually works.

152
00:09:35,950 --> 00:09:41,330
The internet usually works by
having an error detection code

153
00:09:41,330 --> 00:09:45,930
within each packet, a cyclic
redundancy check (CRC).

154
00:09:45,930 --> 00:09:49,020
You hash bits, whatever.

155
00:09:49,020 --> 00:09:54,170
You provide some redundant bits
within each packet if --

156
00:09:54,170 --> 00:09:57,200
when you receive the packet, you
check to see whether the

157
00:09:57,200 --> 00:09:59,130
parity check checks.

158
00:09:59,130 --> 00:10:05,400
If there are parity check bits,
then a very good rule of

159
00:10:05,400 --> 00:10:10,210
thumb is that the probability of
not detecting an error for

160
00:10:10,210 --> 00:10:12,820
almost any type of error pattern
is going to be of the

161
00:10:12,820 --> 00:10:14,750
order of 2 to the minus r.

162
00:10:14,750 --> 00:10:16,970
That's exactly what it would
be if you had a completely

163
00:10:16,970 --> 00:10:18,940
random stream of bits.

164
00:10:18,940 --> 00:10:22,940
Random stream of bits with r
redundant bits in a block, the

165
00:10:22,940 --> 00:10:25,990
probability that all the check
bits are random, the

166
00:10:25,990 --> 00:10:28,440
probability that they're
all equal to 0, is 2

167
00:10:28,440 --> 00:10:29,940
to the minus r.

168
00:10:29,940 --> 00:10:30,340
All right?

169
00:10:30,340 --> 00:10:34,670
But it turns out that's very
good approximation for just

170
00:10:34,670 --> 00:10:35,990
about any error mechanism.

171
00:10:35,990 --> 00:10:38,870
So you pick r large enough.

172
00:10:38,870 --> 00:10:43,110
It's often been picked to be
something like r equals 32.

173
00:10:43,110 --> 00:10:47,320
What kind of failure to
detect does that give?

174
00:10:47,320 --> 00:10:51,220
2 to the minus 32, which is
what, about 2 the minus 9th, 2

175
00:10:51,220 --> 00:10:52,320
to the minus 10th --

176
00:10:52,320 --> 00:10:56,190
10 to the minus 9th, 10
to the minus 10th.

177
00:10:56,190 --> 00:10:58,010
Is that low enough?

178
00:10:58,010 --> 00:10:59,100
It was certainly --

179
00:10:59,100 --> 00:11:01,390
when I started in this business,
that was considered

180
00:11:01,390 --> 00:11:04,930
just incredibly low, but now
that we're sending mega

181
00:11:04,930 --> 00:11:08,220
packets per second, it doesn't
seem quite so low anymore.

182
00:11:08,220 --> 00:11:12,640
And so 32 is a little bit
on the sloppy side.

183
00:11:12,640 --> 00:11:14,870
There are going to be undetected
errors that get

184
00:11:14,870 --> 00:11:17,100
through if you're spending
10 to the 9th,

185
00:11:17,100 --> 00:11:19,710
10 to the 10th packets.

186
00:11:19,710 --> 00:11:26,900
But 32 or, nowadays, 64 would
be a better number.

187
00:11:26,900 --> 00:11:30,390
Just like cryptography, the
number of bits has to go up as

188
00:11:30,390 --> 00:11:32,020
technology goes up.

189
00:11:32,020 --> 00:11:34,400
But 32 is often used.

190
00:11:34,400 --> 00:11:37,700
OK, but here's an alternative
scheme.

191
00:11:37,700 --> 00:11:41,220
Suppose you coded
across packets.

192
00:11:41,220 --> 00:11:48,720
So here is a, say, a
1,000-bit packet.

193
00:11:48,720 --> 00:11:55,270
And here's packet one, here's
packet two, here's packet

194
00:11:55,270 --> 00:12:04,810
three, and so forth up to packet
k, where we're going to

195
00:12:04,810 --> 00:12:16,050
use n, k, d equals n minus k
plus 1, RS code over, it

196
00:12:16,050 --> 00:12:21,720
doesn't matter, GF of let's
say 256, just for definite

197
00:12:21,720 --> 00:12:22,740
[INAUDIBLE].

198
00:12:22,740 --> 00:12:25,270
Here I'm using older notation.

199
00:12:25,270 --> 00:12:28,140
This is the same as F-256.

200
00:12:28,140 --> 00:12:30,310
Or we sometimes write that
as F 2 to the 8th.

201
00:12:32,960 --> 00:12:36,640
OK, how are we going to do
packet error correction?

202
00:12:36,640 --> 00:12:41,420
We're going to code crosswise
in columns, all right?

203
00:12:41,420 --> 00:12:46,860
So these would be k.

204
00:12:46,860 --> 00:12:48,540
Let's make this eight-wide.

205
00:12:48,540 --> 00:12:50,630
Just pick off a bite
at a time here.

206
00:12:50,630 --> 00:12:52,840
So each of these can be
considered to be a

207
00:12:52,840 --> 00:12:56,500
symbol in GF of 256.

208
00:12:56,500 --> 00:13:01,060
And then we'll code n
minus k parity check

209
00:13:01,060 --> 00:13:04,370
packets down here.

210
00:13:04,370 --> 00:13:10,200
So these are redundant
check packets.

211
00:13:10,200 --> 00:13:16,030
Encoded bytes at this point.

212
00:13:16,030 --> 00:13:17,220
They're not packets yet.

213
00:13:17,220 --> 00:13:26,610
But if we do that column-wise
across here, we can fill in n

214
00:13:26,610 --> 00:13:42,160
minus k check packets and you
can see the block length is

215
00:13:42,160 --> 00:13:44,310
quite huge here.

216
00:13:44,310 --> 00:13:48,840
So you might have a delay or
latency problem in executing

217
00:13:48,840 --> 00:13:49,340
this scheme.

218
00:13:49,340 --> 00:13:54,530
Basically, you would have to
send this whole thing before

219
00:13:54,530 --> 00:13:57,130
you could do error correction
and then error correct the

220
00:13:57,130 --> 00:13:58,040
whole thing.

221
00:13:58,040 --> 00:14:00,450
But how does error
correction work?

222
00:14:00,450 --> 00:14:01,230
You send this.

223
00:14:01,230 --> 00:14:05,740
Perhaps some of the packets are
erased or even received

224
00:14:05,740 --> 00:14:07,230
incorrectly.

225
00:14:07,230 --> 00:14:10,760
You would then use some error
correction or erasure and

226
00:14:10,760 --> 00:14:14,880
error correction scheme, which
Ralf talked about, for

227
00:14:14,880 --> 00:14:18,610
correcting the Reed-Solomon
code.

228
00:14:18,610 --> 00:14:27,470
And you could correct up to d
over 2 errors, or up to d

229
00:14:27,470 --> 00:14:31,640
minus 1 erasures, OK?

230
00:14:31,640 --> 00:14:35,560
So this would be a very
powerful packet error

231
00:14:35,560 --> 00:14:36,470
correction scheme.

232
00:14:36,470 --> 00:14:37,500
What are its costs?

233
00:14:37,500 --> 00:14:40,590
It's costs are quite a
bit of redundancy.

234
00:14:40,590 --> 00:14:45,270
It doesn't fit the internet
architecture very well.

235
00:14:45,270 --> 00:14:48,420
This is basically a
point-to-point scheme.

236
00:14:48,420 --> 00:14:51,780
So when you're sending from a to
b, you'd have to send b an

237
00:14:51,780 --> 00:14:55,390
additional n minus k streams.

238
00:14:55,390 --> 00:14:58,660
And if you're sending the same
webpage, as you often do, to

239
00:14:58,660 --> 00:15:03,290
multiple people, you'd have
to send this to everybody.

240
00:15:03,290 --> 00:15:07,380
And it also doesn't have
any feedback in it.

241
00:15:07,380 --> 00:15:10,960
The great thing about ARQ is
that you only have to send the

242
00:15:10,960 --> 00:15:12,720
information that's necessary.

243
00:15:12,720 --> 00:15:15,650
You only have to restore
the packets that

244
00:15:15,650 --> 00:15:17,185
are actually lost.

245
00:15:17,185 --> 00:15:20,370
You send them again.

246
00:15:20,370 --> 00:15:23,520
Whereas here, you're just kind
of, a priori, deciding that

247
00:15:23,520 --> 00:15:26,450
you're going to send a great
deal of redundant information

248
00:15:26,450 --> 00:15:30,380
down here to cover some kind
of worst case, whatever you

249
00:15:30,380 --> 00:15:33,320
think the worst-case number
of packets would be.

250
00:15:33,320 --> 00:15:35,430
If there are more that
worst-case number or packets,

251
00:15:35,430 --> 00:15:37,880
then you could retransmit
again, but you're

252
00:15:37,880 --> 00:15:40,730
retransmitting this huge
block, all right?

253
00:15:40,730 --> 00:15:45,230
So for that reason, this is not
actually used, as far as

254
00:15:45,230 --> 00:15:46,840
I'm aware, in the internet.

255
00:15:46,840 --> 00:15:49,400
ARQ, wherever you have
a feedback path,

256
00:15:49,400 --> 00:15:52,460
you should use it.

257
00:15:52,460 --> 00:15:55,280
That's a general moral.

258
00:15:55,280 --> 00:15:59,540
So ARQ is a wonderful scheme
that is, on an erasure

259
00:15:59,540 --> 00:16:03,810
channel, that's a
capacity-approaching scheme.

260
00:16:03,810 --> 00:16:06,490
Just on a bitwise basis, if
you have a binary erasure

261
00:16:06,490 --> 00:16:11,410
channel with erasure probability
p, and then the

262
00:16:11,410 --> 00:16:15,140
capacity of the channel is 1
minus p, and you can reach

263
00:16:15,140 --> 00:16:18,010
that capacity if you simply
retransmit each

264
00:16:18,010 --> 00:16:18,970
bit that was erased.

265
00:16:18,970 --> 00:16:20,530
As it's erased --

266
00:16:20,530 --> 00:16:22,300
it's erased, you
send it again.

267
00:16:22,300 --> 00:16:25,100
And a quick calculation shows
you that the average number of

268
00:16:25,100 --> 00:16:26,960
retransmissions is p.

269
00:16:26,960 --> 00:16:31,660
And so the average reduction
from 1 bit per second is --

270
00:16:31,660 --> 00:16:35,260
1 bit per transmission is p bits
per transmission, you can

271
00:16:35,260 --> 00:16:38,240
achieve 1 minus p with no
coding at all, just by

272
00:16:38,240 --> 00:16:39,890
retransmission.

273
00:16:39,890 --> 00:16:41,990
So it's perfectly matched
to the erasure channel.

274
00:16:41,990 --> 00:16:47,250
And the internet, especially
with parity checks, CRC,

275
00:16:47,250 --> 00:16:52,980
within blocks, long enough
CRC is basically a

276
00:16:52,980 --> 00:16:56,250
packet erasure channel.

277
00:16:56,250 --> 00:16:59,630
You really, in practice,
hardly ever make

278
00:16:59,630 --> 00:17:01,500
a undetected --

279
00:17:01,500 --> 00:17:05,920
let a packet with errors
come through.

280
00:17:05,920 --> 00:17:07,530
OK?

281
00:17:07,530 --> 00:17:08,750
Any questions about this?

282
00:17:08,750 --> 00:17:12,519
AUDIENCE: [INAUDIBLE].

283
00:17:12,519 --> 00:17:18,530
PROFESSOR: The TCP/IP protocol
just has a 32-bit CRC, I

284
00:17:18,530 --> 00:17:22,310
think, and if it fails to check,
you ask for that packet

285
00:17:22,310 --> 00:17:23,604
again by packet number.

286
00:17:28,930 --> 00:17:30,090
OK?

287
00:17:30,090 --> 00:17:34,040
So Reed-Solomon codes, of
course, are optimal if that's

288
00:17:34,040 --> 00:17:35,040
what you want to do.

289
00:17:35,040 --> 00:17:38,000
You couldn't possibly have
a better code for

290
00:17:38,000 --> 00:17:39,890
coding across packets.

291
00:17:39,890 --> 00:17:42,550
But it's cumbersome in the
packet environment.

292
00:17:45,860 --> 00:17:47,110
OK.

293
00:17:49,880 --> 00:17:54,060
Let's talk about concatenated
codes.

294
00:17:54,060 --> 00:17:55,310
I guess I'll do it at
the same place.

295
00:18:12,370 --> 00:18:15,800
This is something --

296
00:18:15,800 --> 00:18:24,530
I did in my thesis and last
week I was at a tribute to

297
00:18:24,530 --> 00:18:27,230
Andy Viterbi, who invented
the Viterbi

298
00:18:27,230 --> 00:18:29,310
algorithm, among other things.

299
00:18:29,310 --> 00:18:32,850
Of course, everybody knows that
the Viterbi algorithm,

300
00:18:32,850 --> 00:18:36,300
when Andy invented it, he had no
idea it was actually going

301
00:18:36,300 --> 00:18:37,960
to be a practical algorithm.

302
00:18:37,960 --> 00:18:40,060
It's become one of the super
practical algorithms.

303
00:18:40,060 --> 00:18:43,200
He was just trying to prove a
certain result, exponential

304
00:18:43,200 --> 00:18:45,600
error bounds for convolutional
codes.

305
00:18:45,600 --> 00:18:48,300
And he thought the proof was
easier to understand if you

306
00:18:48,300 --> 00:18:54,240
introduce this algorithm, which
he describes perfectly.

307
00:18:54,240 --> 00:18:55,590
It is the Viterbi algorithm.

308
00:18:55,590 --> 00:19:00,150
But really, just a
proof technique.

309
00:19:00,150 --> 00:19:05,140
Didn't even realize it was
an optimum decoder.

310
00:19:05,140 --> 00:19:09,200
And then somebody, not him, not
me, but in his company,

311
00:19:09,200 --> 00:19:11,720
fortunately, realized
that gee, this

312
00:19:11,720 --> 00:19:13,330
could be very practical.

313
00:19:13,330 --> 00:19:16,620
And that became a workhorse
decoding algorithm.

314
00:19:16,620 --> 00:19:21,700
Very similarly, concatenated
codes are something that I did

315
00:19:21,700 --> 00:19:24,450
in my thesis in 1965.

316
00:19:24,450 --> 00:19:28,880
And I was looking, basically,
for a theoretical result.

317
00:19:28,880 --> 00:19:35,060
How could you approach capacity
with an exponentially

318
00:19:35,060 --> 00:19:39,380
decreasing error probability
near capacity but with only

319
00:19:39,380 --> 00:19:42,010
polynomial increasing
complexity?

320
00:19:42,010 --> 00:19:48,610
And I looked into this very
simple idea of basically

321
00:19:48,610 --> 00:19:51,670
taking two codes and using
one to correct the

322
00:19:51,670 --> 00:19:52,630
errors of the other.

323
00:19:52,630 --> 00:19:54,590
And I found that you
could do that.

324
00:19:54,590 --> 00:19:59,310
And I'd also never realized
that this

325
00:19:59,310 --> 00:20:00,580
might actually be practical.

326
00:20:00,580 --> 00:20:04,280
I remember going around giving
talks when I was interviewing

327
00:20:04,280 --> 00:20:07,580
afterwards that I was looking
for an industrial position.

328
00:20:07,580 --> 00:20:11,730
I went down to places like Bell
Labs, IBM labs, and did

329
00:20:11,730 --> 00:20:16,520
seminars talking about codes
that were thousands of symbols

330
00:20:16,520 --> 00:20:19,290
long and everybody rolled their
eyes and said, boy, this

331
00:20:19,290 --> 00:20:22,320
guy is not very practical.

332
00:20:22,320 --> 00:20:26,530
And to my surprise and everyone
else's surprise, this

333
00:20:26,530 --> 00:20:32,990
became and still is a very
practical way of getting

334
00:20:32,990 --> 00:20:34,460
high-performance codes.

335
00:20:34,460 --> 00:20:36,610
This, in conjunction --

336
00:20:36,610 --> 00:20:41,450
well, I'll get into it, but this
was, again, a workhorse

337
00:20:41,450 --> 00:20:47,730
coding technique and still
is in wide use.

338
00:20:47,730 --> 00:20:53,060
In fact, as you will see, this
contains some of the ideas

339
00:20:53,060 --> 00:20:58,650
that go into modern
capacity-approaching codes.

340
00:20:58,650 --> 00:21:01,100
But the idea is very simple.

341
00:21:01,100 --> 00:21:10,730
You can do it two ways, or
probably many more than two.

342
00:21:10,730 --> 00:21:14,035
Suppose we have a basically
binary channel.

343
00:21:17,910 --> 00:21:21,340
I'll just say a core physical
channel there.

344
00:21:21,340 --> 00:21:25,200
The channel is what you can't
affect as an engineer.

345
00:21:25,200 --> 00:21:29,030
So let's say we have a binary
symmetric channel or a binary

346
00:21:29,030 --> 00:21:32,530
input additive white Gaussian
noise channel or

347
00:21:32,530 --> 00:21:33,310
whatever you like.

348
00:21:33,310 --> 00:21:48,140
And then we could put on it an
encoder and decoder for an n,

349
00:21:48,140 --> 00:21:52,506
k, d binary linear block code.

350
00:21:56,080 --> 00:21:58,740
OK?

351
00:21:58,740 --> 00:22:03,490
Now, from the input and the
output, what is this channel

352
00:22:03,490 --> 00:22:04,740
going to look like?

353
00:22:07,720 --> 00:22:09,220
At the input, we're putting --

354
00:22:09,220 --> 00:22:12,780
basically, per block,
we put k bits in.

355
00:22:12,780 --> 00:22:15,390
They're encoded into n bits.

356
00:22:15,390 --> 00:22:21,860
They're sent over the channel,
received some n-tuple of noisy

357
00:22:21,860 --> 00:22:23,250
received symbols.

358
00:22:23,250 --> 00:22:26,480
The decoder tries to find
the best code word.

359
00:22:26,480 --> 00:22:28,755
The code word is identified
by k bits.

360
00:22:32,170 --> 00:22:36,370
Most of the time there'll
be no error and these --

361
00:22:36,370 --> 00:22:41,520
let's call this u in
and u hat out.

362
00:22:41,520 --> 00:22:45,240
u hat is going to equal u.

363
00:22:45,240 --> 00:22:48,150
But, of course, let's
imagine this is a

364
00:22:48,150 --> 00:22:49,790
relatively short code.

365
00:22:49,790 --> 00:22:53,380
Let's imagine this is a maximum
likelihood decoder or

366
00:22:53,380 --> 00:22:57,800
minimum distance decoder in
the appropriate space.

367
00:22:57,800 --> 00:23:01,070
Then the complexity is
going to be of the

368
00:23:01,070 --> 00:23:03,890
order of 2 to the k.

369
00:23:03,890 --> 00:23:07,080
And so you can't let
k get very big.

370
00:23:07,080 --> 00:23:09,180
We'll find somewhat
better ways to do

371
00:23:09,180 --> 00:23:10,900
maximum likelihood decoding.

372
00:23:10,900 --> 00:23:13,050
But if you're really trying to
do optimum decoding, the

373
00:23:13,050 --> 00:23:16,080
complexity is going to go up
exponentially at this stage

374
00:23:16,080 --> 00:23:18,350
with the number of information
bits k.

375
00:23:18,350 --> 00:23:21,440
So this is not the scheme that
we're looking for that has

376
00:23:21,440 --> 00:23:23,940
only polynomial complexity.

377
00:23:23,940 --> 00:23:27,140
We know that we can choose
codes like this that with

378
00:23:27,140 --> 00:23:29,700
optimum decoding get
to capacity.

379
00:23:29,700 --> 00:23:32,350
That's Shannon's theorem.

380
00:23:32,350 --> 00:23:36,040
But we don't know how to decode
them with reasonable

381
00:23:36,040 --> 00:23:37,950
complexity.

382
00:23:37,950 --> 00:23:39,320
But, all right, here's
a start.

383
00:23:39,320 --> 00:23:43,910
We could use a relatively modest
length code that we can

384
00:23:43,910 --> 00:23:45,480
feasibly decode.

385
00:23:45,480 --> 00:23:48,470
And this is what we get.

386
00:23:48,470 --> 00:23:49,740
OK.

387
00:23:49,740 --> 00:23:52,240
So we have blocks going in.

388
00:23:52,240 --> 00:23:55,920
Block from an alphabet
of size 2 to the k.

389
00:23:55,920 --> 00:23:58,550
Blocks coming out, alphabet
size 2 to the k.

390
00:23:58,550 --> 00:24:01,710
Occasionally, we make errors.

391
00:24:01,710 --> 00:24:03,370
What's a good idea to then do?

392
00:24:06,150 --> 00:24:07,770
This is not very hard.

393
00:24:07,770 --> 00:24:09,870
This is why you should have been
in this field in the '60s

394
00:24:09,870 --> 00:24:12,870
rather than the year 2005.

395
00:24:12,870 --> 00:24:16,300
There were lots of good ideas
just laying around waiting to

396
00:24:16,300 --> 00:24:18,530
be picked up.

397
00:24:18,530 --> 00:24:19,020
Class?

398
00:24:19,020 --> 00:24:21,310
Anyone have a suggestion
for how to make further

399
00:24:21,310 --> 00:24:22,480
improvement in this system?

400
00:24:22,480 --> 00:24:24,168
AUDIENCE: [INAUDIBLE].

401
00:24:24,168 --> 00:24:25,590
PROFESSOR: Add another code.

402
00:24:25,590 --> 00:24:28,690
What should it be?

403
00:24:28,690 --> 00:24:34,830
Let's put an encoder
here for what?

404
00:24:38,734 --> 00:24:41,662
AUDIENCE: [INAUDIBLE].

405
00:24:41,662 --> 00:24:45,190
PROFESSOR: Everyone is
extremely wide awake.

406
00:24:45,190 --> 00:24:50,500
An n, k, d Reed-Solomon
code over what field?

407
00:24:55,670 --> 00:25:00,965
In principle, it should
be over F2 to the k.

408
00:25:00,965 --> 00:25:04,450
Now, of course, if k is 64 or
something here, you might not

409
00:25:04,450 --> 00:25:07,900
even go all the way to field
of 2 to the 64 elements.

410
00:25:07,900 --> 00:25:10,880
You might divide it up again as
we did in the packet error

411
00:25:10,880 --> 00:25:11,380
correction.

412
00:25:11,380 --> 00:25:16,690
But basically, the way this goes
is you try to keep this

413
00:25:16,690 --> 00:25:19,770
as small as possible so that
this can still work.

414
00:25:19,770 --> 00:25:27,570
There's a tradeoff between the
complexity of the two codes

415
00:25:27,570 --> 00:25:29,672
and therefore, the rates.

416
00:25:29,672 --> 00:25:30,922
The decoder --

417
00:25:33,390 --> 00:25:44,160
here we have an algebraic
Reed-Solomon decoder, which,

418
00:25:44,160 --> 00:25:48,660
in the simplest case, could
just do error correction.

419
00:25:48,660 --> 00:25:53,190
Just take these k bits as a hard
decision on u hat and try

420
00:25:53,190 --> 00:25:57,310
to correct any errors that
occurred in this inner loop

421
00:25:57,310 --> 00:26:00,700
here, which we might think
of this as being a

422
00:26:00,700 --> 00:26:02,110
2 to the kre channel.

423
00:26:02,110 --> 00:26:05,302
So this whole thing
together is a 2 to

424
00:26:05,302 --> 00:26:06,890
the kre super channel.

425
00:26:09,500 --> 00:26:15,020
Sorry if you can't read that,
but you heard me say it.

426
00:26:15,020 --> 00:26:19,740
So here's a channel that takes
in 2 to the kre symbols, puts

427
00:26:19,740 --> 00:26:25,900
out 2 to the kre symbols and
sometimes makes errors

428
00:26:25,900 --> 00:26:27,770
according to whatever the error
probability you can

429
00:26:27,770 --> 00:26:29,020
achieve here is.

430
00:26:31,560 --> 00:26:35,930
Or some of the discussion back
when we were talking about

431
00:26:35,930 --> 00:26:39,170
hard decision with binary
suggested that it would be

432
00:26:39,170 --> 00:26:43,980
better to pass along more
reliability information here

433
00:26:43,980 --> 00:26:45,660
along with just the
hard decision.

434
00:26:49,980 --> 00:26:54,600
And the very simplest kind of
reliability information is if

435
00:26:54,600 --> 00:26:59,950
this guy really isn't sure, if
either the noise is too large

436
00:26:59,950 --> 00:27:04,000
so he can't make any decision
or if the noise leaves him

437
00:27:04,000 --> 00:27:06,980
exactly halfway between two
code words so it's a

438
00:27:06,980 --> 00:27:11,290
completely ambiguous decision,
or whatever criteria you have,

439
00:27:11,290 --> 00:27:13,600
this might make erasures.

440
00:27:13,600 --> 00:27:16,730
And I'm sure Ralf told you how
to do error and erasure

441
00:27:16,730 --> 00:27:20,870
correction with Reed-Solomon
codes.

442
00:27:20,870 --> 00:27:25,320
Or this could be more likely
that information just --

443
00:27:25,320 --> 00:27:28,490
how likely was the code
word you actually saw?

444
00:27:28,490 --> 00:27:32,080
And there are various ways of
devising an approximate

445
00:27:32,080 --> 00:27:33,900
likelihood metric.

446
00:27:33,900 --> 00:27:37,030
You just do what makes sense
that indicates that some

447
00:27:37,030 --> 00:27:40,130
words, you're absolutely sure
of in this decoding.

448
00:27:40,130 --> 00:27:44,890
And other words, you
don't know --

449
00:27:44,890 --> 00:27:48,050
if you have one or more good
candidates or you have no good

450
00:27:48,050 --> 00:27:50,620
candidates.

451
00:27:50,620 --> 00:27:54,880
So based on this reliability
information, you can actually

452
00:27:54,880 --> 00:27:55,990
incorporate that.

453
00:27:55,990 --> 00:27:58,580
Did Ralf talk about
reliability-based decoding?

454
00:27:58,580 --> 00:28:02,030
Soft decoding algorithms
for Reed-Solomon codes?

455
00:28:02,030 --> 00:28:02,710
No?

456
00:28:02,710 --> 00:28:05,950
OK, well, that's a shame because
he and Alex Vardy are

457
00:28:05,950 --> 00:28:10,250
the inventors of a very
good class that's

458
00:28:10,250 --> 00:28:11,760
recently been improved.

459
00:28:11,760 --> 00:28:20,060
So one of the knocks on
Reed-Solomon codes is that, at

460
00:28:20,060 --> 00:28:25,670
one point, you might have said
a minus can only work with

461
00:28:25,670 --> 00:28:26,920
hard decisions.

462
00:28:29,000 --> 00:28:31,410
And then, fairly early,
it was figured out how

463
00:28:31,410 --> 00:28:33,970
to correct to erasures.

464
00:28:33,970 --> 00:28:39,320
But just in the last 10
years, we now have --

465
00:28:39,320 --> 00:28:40,420
this is no longer true.

466
00:28:40,420 --> 00:28:45,735
We can have soft, meaning
reliability-labeled inputs.

467
00:28:55,740 --> 00:28:58,890
And this is a plus.

468
00:28:58,890 --> 00:29:01,260
That means we can do soft --

469
00:29:01,260 --> 00:29:05,140
and we have corresponding
algorithms that can do soft

470
00:29:05,140 --> 00:29:07,080
Reed-Solomon decoding.

471
00:29:07,080 --> 00:29:09,770
They are, of course, more
complicated than just

472
00:29:09,770 --> 00:29:11,020
straightforward error

473
00:29:11,020 --> 00:29:13,720
correction with hard decisions.

474
00:29:13,720 --> 00:29:17,660
But there's still polynomial
complexity.

475
00:29:17,660 --> 00:29:25,660
They're maybe an order of
slightly higher degree of n,

476
00:29:25,660 --> 00:29:29,200
but still polynomial in the
block length or in k or d or

477
00:29:29,200 --> 00:29:31,780
whatever you're taking.

478
00:29:31,780 --> 00:29:35,160
And so we now have some such
algorithms that do make

479
00:29:35,160 --> 00:29:37,240
substantial gains.

480
00:29:37,240 --> 00:29:41,350
And, of course, if he didn't
tell you about them, I'm not

481
00:29:41,350 --> 00:29:43,720
going to tell you about them.

482
00:29:43,720 --> 00:29:45,890
It's a rather specialized
subject.

483
00:29:45,890 --> 00:29:47,080
But it's something
that's really

484
00:29:47,080 --> 00:29:50,650
happened the last 10 years.

485
00:29:50,650 --> 00:29:52,500
And they've constantly
been improved.

486
00:29:52,500 --> 00:29:55,260
The first ones, like one
I came up with called

487
00:29:55,260 --> 00:29:59,560
generalized minimum distance
decoding, made a modest

488
00:29:59,560 --> 00:30:00,950
improvement.

489
00:30:00,950 --> 00:30:05,810
In dB terms, 1 dB, where
there's 3 dB to be got.

490
00:30:05,810 --> 00:30:10,360
Now they're up to 2, 2 1/2 out
of the 3 dB with these new

491
00:30:10,360 --> 00:30:14,160
soft Reed-Solomon decoding
algorithms.

492
00:30:14,160 --> 00:30:17,560
So anyway, if you pass some
reliability information here,

493
00:30:17,560 --> 00:30:20,775
then you can improve the
performance of this decoder.

494
00:30:20,775 --> 00:30:27,640
This decoder knows which symbols
are reliable and it

495
00:30:27,640 --> 00:30:31,610
won't change in the decoding
in which are unreliable or

496
00:30:31,610 --> 00:30:32,550
completely erased.

497
00:30:32,550 --> 00:30:34,470
Where there's no information
about them, that actually

498
00:30:34,470 --> 00:30:36,940
helps you in the decoding.

499
00:30:36,940 --> 00:30:43,670
If you knew that you had s
erasures rather than s errors,

500
00:30:43,670 --> 00:30:45,620
this helps you quite a lot.

501
00:30:45,620 --> 00:30:47,840
We can decode twice as
many erasures as

502
00:30:47,840 --> 00:30:49,680
we can decode errors.

503
00:30:49,680 --> 00:30:53,060
And similarly, soft information
in between can

504
00:30:53,060 --> 00:30:56,310
improve the capabilities
of your decoder.

505
00:30:56,310 --> 00:30:56,730
All right.

506
00:30:56,730 --> 00:31:01,620
So that's the set up.

507
00:31:01,620 --> 00:31:04,275
You can see why it makes a
certain amount of sense.

508
00:31:07,190 --> 00:31:10,360
From a complexity point of
view, what it does --

509
00:31:10,360 --> 00:31:12,680
here, we're going to do maximum
likelihood decoding,

510
00:31:12,680 --> 00:31:14,760
complexity order
of 2 to the k.

511
00:31:14,760 --> 00:31:16,710
But we're not going
to let k get very

512
00:31:16,710 --> 00:31:18,690
large, so this is feasible.

513
00:31:18,690 --> 00:31:21,330
Then we're going to let the code
get very long, as we know

514
00:31:21,330 --> 00:31:23,480
we have to do from Shannon's
Theorem,

515
00:31:23,480 --> 00:31:26,020
using this outer code.

516
00:31:26,020 --> 00:31:29,840
But now we know we have
polynomial complexity

517
00:31:29,840 --> 00:31:33,340
Reed-Solomon decoding
algorithms, even for the soft

518
00:31:33,340 --> 00:31:34,600
decision case.

519
00:31:34,600 --> 00:31:42,330
So if we balance the complexity
here, basically let

520
00:31:42,330 --> 00:31:46,140
this length be exponential and
this length, as it is -- it's

521
00:31:46,140 --> 00:31:50,190
of the order of 2 to
the k itself --

522
00:31:50,190 --> 00:31:55,100
then we can get polynomial
complexity overall, all right?

523
00:31:55,100 --> 00:31:57,980
The overall complexity is going
to be of the order of a

524
00:31:57,980 --> 00:32:01,250
small power of 2 to the k.

525
00:32:01,250 --> 00:32:04,140
The overall block length is
going to be of the order --

526
00:32:04,140 --> 00:32:07,430
is going to be linear
in 2 to the k.

527
00:32:07,430 --> 00:32:10,300
And therefore, you're going
to get polynomial decoding

528
00:32:10,300 --> 00:32:11,620
complexity.

529
00:32:11,620 --> 00:32:14,510
The other question
is performance.

530
00:32:14,510 --> 00:32:19,770
And you can show
that if you --

531
00:32:19,770 --> 00:32:23,730
well, even if you don't use
reliability information, you

532
00:32:23,730 --> 00:32:27,360
can get all the way to the
capacity of this underlying

533
00:32:27,360 --> 00:32:31,860
channel here with
exponentially-decreasing error

534
00:32:31,860 --> 00:32:35,080
rate for any rate below
that capacity.

535
00:32:35,080 --> 00:32:40,530
Not as good an exponent as if
you just used random codes per

536
00:32:40,530 --> 00:32:44,740
Shannon and coded for the
channel, but nonetheless, you

537
00:32:44,740 --> 00:32:46,030
basically get what you want.

538
00:32:46,030 --> 00:32:53,310
So using two smaller, simpler
codes to create one long code

539
00:32:53,310 --> 00:32:55,790
turned out to be a good idea.

540
00:32:55,790 --> 00:32:58,520
First of all, for proving this
theoretical result, you could

541
00:32:58,520 --> 00:33:01,740
get exponentially-decreasing
error rate for polynomial

542
00:33:01,740 --> 00:33:04,190
increasing decoding
complexity.

543
00:33:04,190 --> 00:33:06,830
And within about 10 years,
this is what

544
00:33:06,830 --> 00:33:08,080
people actually did.

545
00:33:10,510 --> 00:33:14,370
And, in fact, what people
actually did --

546
00:33:14,370 --> 00:33:19,390
I've got a block code here, but
what people actually did

547
00:33:19,390 --> 00:33:22,220
was they used a short
constraint length

548
00:33:22,220 --> 00:33:25,380
convolutional code here,
which we'll be talking

549
00:33:25,380 --> 00:33:28,450
about after the break.

550
00:33:28,450 --> 00:33:31,260
Convolutional codes tend to
have a better performance

551
00:33:31,260 --> 00:33:34,860
complexity tradeoff,
particularly in soft decision

552
00:33:34,860 --> 00:33:37,060
situations than block
codes do.

553
00:33:37,060 --> 00:33:42,270
So in a practical system, it's
almost always better to use a

554
00:33:42,270 --> 00:33:44,110
convolutional code than
a block code.

555
00:33:44,110 --> 00:33:46,710
We'll discuss the reasons why.

556
00:33:46,710 --> 00:33:50,270
So this convolutional code
here, there is a maximum

557
00:33:50,270 --> 00:33:53,550
likelihood sequence detector
for the convolutional code

558
00:33:53,550 --> 00:33:55,710
down here, which is the Viterbi
algorithm, which

559
00:33:55,710 --> 00:33:58,550
you've probably all
heard about.

560
00:33:58,550 --> 00:34:02,390
And this is very practical as
long as the constraint length,

561
00:34:02,390 --> 00:34:05,710
k, now becomes the constraint
length, nu, of the code

562
00:34:05,710 --> 00:34:07,600
doesn't get too large.

563
00:34:07,600 --> 00:34:12,820
So for about 20 years, the
standard for space

564
00:34:12,820 --> 00:34:20,330
communication was this was a
(255, 223, 33) Reed-Solomon

565
00:34:20,330 --> 00:34:27,270
code over F-256.

566
00:34:27,270 --> 00:34:35,560
This is a constraint length 6,
rate 1/2 convolutional code.

567
00:34:39,100 --> 00:34:45,270
This is a 64-state Viterbi
algorithm.

568
00:34:45,270 --> 00:34:48,380
So what's the --

569
00:34:48,380 --> 00:34:52,320
again, if we have a look at the
error channel, here is a

570
00:34:52,320 --> 00:34:54,790
stream of bits coming along.

571
00:34:54,790 --> 00:34:58,960
After encoding and decoding,
what we typically see is

572
00:34:58,960 --> 00:35:02,260
bursts of errors, all right?

573
00:35:02,260 --> 00:35:04,640
So you get a burst
that starts --

574
00:35:04,640 --> 00:35:08,040
in convolutional codes, it can
start at a random time, end at

575
00:35:08,040 --> 00:35:09,355
a random time.

576
00:35:09,355 --> 00:35:14,730
You might get another discrete
error event over here.

577
00:35:14,730 --> 00:35:16,520
In other words, most
of the time, the

578
00:35:16,520 --> 00:35:19,430
decoder is decoding properly.

579
00:35:19,430 --> 00:35:22,220
What you're receiving is what
you transmitted in a

580
00:35:22,220 --> 00:35:24,150
streamwise fashion.

581
00:35:24,150 --> 00:35:27,510
The bits just are transmitted
forever.

582
00:35:27,510 --> 00:35:30,250
But every so often, the decoder
gets off on the wrong

583
00:35:30,250 --> 00:35:33,000
track, puts out errors for
a while, then gets

584
00:35:33,000 --> 00:35:37,680
resynchronized, and decodes
correctly again.

585
00:35:37,680 --> 00:35:40,140
Is my picture clear?

586
00:35:40,140 --> 00:35:44,970
I'm using words, mainly, to tell
you what it represents.

587
00:35:44,970 --> 00:35:47,290
OK.

588
00:35:47,290 --> 00:35:52,230
So now, basically, what you want
to do is, just as we did

589
00:35:52,230 --> 00:35:56,940
in the packet communication
case, you want to send

590
00:35:56,940 --> 00:36:05,940
multiple parallel streams, up
to 256 of them, such that in

591
00:36:05,940 --> 00:36:09,870
this stream, you're going to get
independent error blocks.

592
00:36:09,870 --> 00:36:12,710
And this one, you're
going to get errors

593
00:36:12,710 --> 00:36:13,900
occurring somewhere else.

594
00:36:13,900 --> 00:36:16,550
They're going to have
a typical length.

595
00:36:16,550 --> 00:36:21,290
You can very well estimate what
the typical length of

596
00:36:21,290 --> 00:36:24,390
error events is, but they
occur randomly.

597
00:36:24,390 --> 00:36:27,010
And now you use the Reed-Solomon
code, coding

598
00:36:27,010 --> 00:36:35,430
across this, and that will
basically give you this

599
00:36:35,430 --> 00:36:36,680
picture over here.

600
00:36:39,100 --> 00:36:42,670
How would I get this?

601
00:36:42,670 --> 00:36:54,570
One way is by using a block
interleaver, which is

602
00:36:54,570 --> 00:36:56,285
described in the notes.

603
00:36:56,285 --> 00:37:01,040
A block interleaver, you
basically take a long block

604
00:37:01,040 --> 00:37:05,470
from the convolutional code
and you just encode and

605
00:37:05,470 --> 00:37:08,350
transmit along here and
ultimately decode.

606
00:37:08,350 --> 00:37:11,350
And after a very long time,
you come back and start

607
00:37:11,350 --> 00:37:13,110
transmitting the second
row just as

608
00:37:13,110 --> 00:37:15,140
part of the same stream.

609
00:37:15,140 --> 00:37:19,760
And then the third
row and so forth.

610
00:37:19,760 --> 00:37:26,630
And if the block length n,
here, is long enough, the

611
00:37:26,630 --> 00:37:28,490
errors in different rows
will be effectively

612
00:37:28,490 --> 00:37:31,560
independent, all right?

613
00:37:31,560 --> 00:37:34,850
So again, you wind up with
very long blocks in this

614
00:37:34,850 --> 00:37:39,365
scheme, but analytically,
it works.

615
00:37:39,365 --> 00:37:45,106
And in practice, this is roughly
what's done, except

616
00:37:45,106 --> 00:37:47,740
there is such a thing as a
convolutional interleaver,

617
00:37:47,740 --> 00:37:52,790
which again, operates streamwise
and actually

618
00:37:52,790 --> 00:37:55,571
performs better in practice.

619
00:37:55,571 --> 00:37:58,300
But I won't take the time to go
into this because we're not

620
00:37:58,300 --> 00:38:01,470
going to really be getting into
things like interleavers.

621
00:38:01,470 --> 00:38:03,780
Do you see how this works?

622
00:38:03,780 --> 00:38:05,060
OK.

623
00:38:05,060 --> 00:38:08,300
So it works well
theoretically.

624
00:38:08,300 --> 00:38:10,380
It gives us the theoretical
result we want.

625
00:38:10,380 --> 00:38:12,345
Works well in practice.

626
00:38:15,570 --> 00:38:17,420
As I say, this was the
standard for space

627
00:38:17,420 --> 00:38:23,710
communications during the
'70s and the '80s.

628
00:38:23,710 --> 00:38:27,600
Around the end of the '80s,
they upgraded this.

629
00:38:27,600 --> 00:38:35,860
First of all, they replaced this
by a nu equals 14, rate

630
00:38:35,860 --> 00:38:41,780
1/6, lower rate convolutional
code, so this now becomes a 2

631
00:38:41,780 --> 00:38:46,075
to the 1fourth state
Viterbi decoder.

632
00:38:46,075 --> 00:38:53,110
They built this huge rack at
JPL that had 8,192 parallel

633
00:38:53,110 --> 00:38:55,770
decoding units,
add-compare-select units in

634
00:38:55,770 --> 00:38:58,560
the Viterbi algorithm,
to decode this thing.

635
00:38:58,560 --> 00:39:01,150
But, of course, they only need
to do that in one place, in

636
00:39:01,150 --> 00:39:02,130
the space program.

637
00:39:02,130 --> 00:39:04,560
Everything comes back to JPL.

638
00:39:04,560 --> 00:39:07,650
So they built this BVD,
Big Viterbi decoder.

639
00:39:10,210 --> 00:39:15,130
And first, they used it with
this code and then they souped

640
00:39:15,130 --> 00:39:17,110
up the Reed-Solomon code.

641
00:39:17,110 --> 00:39:23,810
And by about 1990, 1991, they
got this thing operating up

642
00:39:23,810 --> 00:39:27,980
within about 2 dB of the
Shannon limit, OK?

643
00:39:27,980 --> 00:39:32,200
Which was considered a heroic
feat at the time, or even now.

644
00:39:32,200 --> 00:39:36,090
So that kind of tells you, in
the terms we've been using in

645
00:39:36,090 --> 00:39:39,400
this course, just what
you can get out of

646
00:39:39,400 --> 00:39:40,650
this kind of approach.

647
00:39:44,310 --> 00:39:48,520
At that point, that was
considered coding is dead.

648
00:39:48,520 --> 00:39:49,770
There's really nothing
more to do.

649
00:39:49,770 --> 00:39:53,000
We're within about 2 dB of the
Shannon limit and it's

650
00:39:53,000 --> 00:39:54,820
inconceivable that we
could actually get

651
00:39:54,820 --> 00:39:56,850
any closer than that.

652
00:39:56,850 --> 00:39:59,600
Second half of the course will,
of course, tell us how

653
00:39:59,600 --> 00:40:03,290
we can get within 0.0045 dB
of the Shannon limit.

654
00:40:03,290 --> 00:40:06,250
But that was the state of
the art as of about

655
00:40:06,250 --> 00:40:11,460
1990, 15 years ago.

656
00:40:11,460 --> 00:40:12,310
Questions?

657
00:40:12,310 --> 00:40:14,670
Comments?

658
00:40:14,670 --> 00:40:15,920
OK.

659
00:40:18,850 --> 00:40:19,220
All right.

660
00:40:19,220 --> 00:40:25,260
I'll just mention a third
application is burst error

661
00:40:25,260 --> 00:40:28,990
correction, which really,
we've already

662
00:40:28,990 --> 00:40:30,240
been talking about.

663
00:40:35,480 --> 00:40:37,970
Suppose --

664
00:40:37,970 --> 00:40:40,270
let's let this be a
naked channel now.

665
00:40:40,270 --> 00:40:42,870
Suppose you're transmitting
with an

666
00:40:42,870 --> 00:40:44,210
interleave scheme like this.

667
00:40:44,210 --> 00:40:46,880
And now, in the same way --

668
00:40:46,880 --> 00:40:49,250
it's a radio channel or
something and every so often,

669
00:40:49,250 --> 00:40:53,960
you have an outage just due to
fading, or a thunderstorm, or

670
00:40:53,960 --> 00:40:58,010
somebody turns on his vacuum
cleaner, or whatever.

671
00:40:58,010 --> 00:41:00,200
Every so often, as you
transmit, you're

672
00:41:00,200 --> 00:41:01,000
going to get bursts.

673
00:41:01,000 --> 00:41:02,330
You don't have independent,

674
00:41:02,330 --> 00:41:04,350
identically-distributed errors.

675
00:41:04,350 --> 00:41:07,090
The character of the channel is
such that you see bursts of

676
00:41:07,090 --> 00:41:10,210
errors, which is precisely
what you do in this super

677
00:41:10,210 --> 00:41:11,670
channel here.

678
00:41:11,670 --> 00:41:16,380
Every so often, you see a bunch
of errors if you have

679
00:41:16,380 --> 00:41:20,470
the original transmitted scheme
to compare it to.

680
00:41:20,470 --> 00:41:21,120
All right.

681
00:41:21,120 --> 00:41:24,290
In exactly the same way,
you can code --

682
00:41:24,290 --> 00:41:27,470
with something like this block
interleaver, you can code

683
00:41:27,470 --> 00:41:31,950
across channels and correct
the bursts with

684
00:41:31,950 --> 00:41:33,850
Reed-Solomon codes.

685
00:41:33,850 --> 00:41:37,100
And here, it's quite easy
to show that, because

686
00:41:37,100 --> 00:41:40,630
Reed-Solomon codes have optimal
parameters n, k, d,

687
00:41:40,630 --> 00:41:44,140
that Reed-Solomon codes do
the best possible job of

688
00:41:44,140 --> 00:41:48,180
correcting burst errors that you
possibly could do, given

689
00:41:48,180 --> 00:41:52,580
some specification for how long
the bursts could possibly

690
00:41:52,580 --> 00:42:00,820
be and the minimum guard
space between bursts.

691
00:42:00,820 --> 00:42:03,410
This is classical stuff.

692
00:42:03,410 --> 00:42:06,820
Reed-Solomon codes are optimum
burst correctors if you

693
00:42:06,820 --> 00:42:11,750
describe the burst channel by
max burst length in a minimum

694
00:42:11,750 --> 00:42:14,029
guard space.

695
00:42:14,029 --> 00:42:15,980
Is that too brief?

696
00:42:15,980 --> 00:42:17,040
Probably is.

697
00:42:17,040 --> 00:42:19,700
Give you some impression of
what we're talking about.

698
00:42:19,700 --> 00:42:22,920
So Reed-Solomon codes are
optimum for burst error

699
00:42:22,920 --> 00:42:29,750
correction, which, most real
channels are bursty.

700
00:42:29,750 --> 00:42:33,500
The only non-bursty channel
that we really have is the

701
00:42:33,500 --> 00:42:36,300
additive white Gaussian noise
channel, ultimately.

702
00:42:36,300 --> 00:42:39,100
That is the channel in space
communications, which is why

703
00:42:39,100 --> 00:42:45,280
you can apply a nice,
textbook-type code like this

704
00:42:45,280 --> 00:42:46,810
to the space channel.

705
00:42:46,810 --> 00:42:49,250
For any other channel,
typically, you have to use

706
00:42:49,250 --> 00:42:52,460
some kind of interleaving to
break up the bursts so

707
00:42:52,460 --> 00:42:54,340
that you can --

708
00:42:54,340 --> 00:42:58,120
this simply is no information
over a long time.

709
00:42:58,120 --> 00:43:01,310
If you tried to encode crossways
on this, you'd have

710
00:43:01,310 --> 00:43:05,700
to have a code that's long
enough to see the average

711
00:43:05,700 --> 00:43:07,890
burst's behavior.

712
00:43:07,890 --> 00:43:13,370
We'd make the burst have
an ergodic model.

713
00:43:13,370 --> 00:43:16,160
The way to do that in practice
is to code across it so you

714
00:43:16,160 --> 00:43:21,180
get independent snippets of
widely separated bursts which

715
00:43:21,180 --> 00:43:23,156
can be assumed to
be independent.

716
00:43:23,156 --> 00:43:23,650
Yeah.

717
00:43:23,650 --> 00:43:24,900
AUDIENCE: [INAUDIBLE]?

718
00:43:28,890 --> 00:43:30,080
PROFESSOR: No different,
really.

719
00:43:30,080 --> 00:43:33,377
AUDIENCE: [INAUDIBLE].

720
00:43:33,377 --> 00:43:36,010
PROFESSOR: Yeah, in space
channel -- all right.

721
00:43:36,010 --> 00:43:37,830
Here, I'm talking about
power limit.

722
00:43:37,830 --> 00:43:40,300
That's a good question.

723
00:43:40,300 --> 00:43:44,540
But if you think about the
band-limited regime,

724
00:43:44,540 --> 00:43:45,640
let's suppose --

725
00:43:45,640 --> 00:43:48,320
so this would be some
[? MRE ?] channel.

726
00:43:48,320 --> 00:43:53,570
You would use some multilevel
signaling scheme like QAM with

727
00:43:53,570 --> 00:43:58,530
a large signal set or QPSK or
something like that to get a

728
00:43:58,530 --> 00:44:02,710
basic transmission with a
discrete signal set that

729
00:44:02,710 --> 00:44:05,460
doesn't lose too much
over sending

730
00:44:05,460 --> 00:44:08,730
Gaussian over the channel.

731
00:44:08,730 --> 00:44:11,440
Again, this will be later
in the course.

732
00:44:11,440 --> 00:44:13,480
We'll talk about
this in detail.

733
00:44:13,480 --> 00:44:15,770
Other than that --

734
00:44:15,770 --> 00:44:18,940
well, all right, so now this
is an MRE channel.

735
00:44:18,940 --> 00:44:22,660
If M is large enough, then you
could apply Reed-Solomon codes

736
00:44:22,660 --> 00:44:23,410
right here.

737
00:44:23,410 --> 00:44:24,950
But typically, it's not.

738
00:44:24,950 --> 00:44:28,590
M is like 16 or 64.

739
00:44:28,590 --> 00:44:32,940
And so Reed-Solomon codes would
still be too short.

740
00:44:32,940 --> 00:44:34,370
You would not be able
to get long enough

741
00:44:34,370 --> 00:44:36,280
codes over such a channel.

742
00:44:36,280 --> 00:44:40,210
So a similar kind of
thing can be done.

743
00:44:40,210 --> 00:44:43,250
And the history of
bandwidth-limited coding

744
00:44:43,250 --> 00:44:47,530
pretty much parallels that
of power-limited coding.

745
00:44:47,530 --> 00:44:52,740
What corresponds to block codes
here is lattice codes

746
00:44:52,740 --> 00:44:53,820
for this channel.

747
00:44:53,820 --> 00:44:56,180
What corresponds to
convolutional codes is

748
00:44:56,180 --> 00:44:59,510
trellis-coded modulation.

749
00:44:59,510 --> 00:45:05,180
And again, once you handle the
basic physical channel with

750
00:45:05,180 --> 00:45:08,160
these codes that are well
matched to that channel but

751
00:45:08,160 --> 00:45:11,420
whose complexity increases too
rapidly if you make them long

752
00:45:11,420 --> 00:45:15,510
because of exponential decoding,
then you can always

753
00:45:15,510 --> 00:45:18,430
clean up whatever
errors you make.

754
00:45:18,430 --> 00:45:22,030
You can think of this as a
cleanup function out here.

755
00:45:22,030 --> 00:45:24,290
Typically, the rates out
here are very high.

756
00:45:24,290 --> 00:45:26,120
You don't need much
redundancy.

757
00:45:26,120 --> 00:45:30,550
It doesn't cost too much
in overall rate.

758
00:45:30,550 --> 00:45:36,340
But even with very high rates,
like 223 over 255, you can do

759
00:45:36,340 --> 00:45:38,225
a rather large amount
of error correction.

760
00:45:38,225 --> 00:45:41,430
You can correct up to
16 errors or 32

761
00:45:41,430 --> 00:45:42,980
erasures with us channel.

762
00:45:42,980 --> 00:45:45,720
So this is a cleanup function.

763
00:45:45,720 --> 00:45:49,310
You basically work very hard
in here, get the best error

764
00:45:49,310 --> 00:45:51,430
probability you can, which --

765
00:45:51,430 --> 00:45:52,740
it doesn't have to be too low.

766
00:45:52,740 --> 00:45:55,340
10 to the minus 2, 10
to the minus 3.

767
00:45:55,340 --> 00:45:57,900
And then you use this to clean
it up and that drives the

768
00:45:57,900 --> 00:46:00,428
error probability down to 10 to
the minus 12 or 10 to the

769
00:46:00,428 --> 00:46:02,360
minus 15 or whatever
you really want.

770
00:46:05,910 --> 00:46:09,187
But the principles are
the same in power

771
00:46:09,187 --> 00:46:10,660
limit and band limit.

772
00:46:10,660 --> 00:46:13,730
But nice question.

773
00:46:13,730 --> 00:46:14,980
Any other questions?

774
00:46:18,700 --> 00:46:19,250
OK.

775
00:46:19,250 --> 00:46:26,290
So as a result, Reed-Solomon
codes are the general purpose

776
00:46:26,290 --> 00:46:32,310
code that has emerged from
algebraic coding theory.

777
00:46:32,310 --> 00:46:37,080
A good example of burst error
correction is, you know on

778
00:46:37,080 --> 00:46:41,260
your CDs, there is an error
correction scheme incorporated

779
00:46:41,260 --> 00:46:45,610
such that if you scratch
the CD, it still works.

780
00:46:45,610 --> 00:46:46,240
How does that work?

781
00:46:46,240 --> 00:46:48,380
It could only be because
there's some error

782
00:46:48,380 --> 00:46:49,150
correction in there.

783
00:46:49,150 --> 00:46:53,810
What, actually, is the error
correction scheme?

784
00:46:53,810 --> 00:46:58,000
I'm not sure I know what the
latest and greatest is, but

785
00:46:58,000 --> 00:47:01,310
generally, the error correction
schemes for

786
00:47:01,310 --> 00:47:05,700
magnetic memory recording
like that have used

787
00:47:05,700 --> 00:47:08,160
Reed-Solomon codes --

788
00:47:08,160 --> 00:47:11,040
have used two Reed-Solomon
codes in interleave

789
00:47:11,040 --> 00:47:11,960
fashion like this.

790
00:47:11,960 --> 00:47:14,290
So the across code
is Reed-Solomon.

791
00:47:14,290 --> 00:47:16,220
The down code is Reed-Solomon.

792
00:47:16,220 --> 00:47:20,820
As a result, if you make a
scratch through the disc, you

793
00:47:20,820 --> 00:47:28,980
will cut all of these codes, but
you will cut each one in a

794
00:47:28,980 --> 00:47:32,300
small enough place so that
you can correct it.

795
00:47:32,300 --> 00:47:34,620
So you can think of this as a
actually a physical laying

796
00:47:34,620 --> 00:47:38,820
down of Reed-Solomon codes on
the two-dimensional surface of

797
00:47:38,820 --> 00:47:41,710
the disc in such a way that --

798
00:47:41,710 --> 00:47:45,350
well, even if your scratch came
right across one whole

799
00:47:45,350 --> 00:47:48,780
channel here, then, of course,
this decoder would be dead.

800
00:47:48,780 --> 00:47:52,590
But you still have somebody
decoding in this direction to

801
00:47:52,590 --> 00:47:54,740
pick up the errors.

802
00:47:54,740 --> 00:47:58,000
And so that's why you can
completely abuse these discs

803
00:47:58,000 --> 00:48:01,160
and they still work.

804
00:48:01,160 --> 00:48:02,750
And when you think about what's
actually going on,

805
00:48:02,750 --> 00:48:10,120
think of the transfer rates from
a CD to your computer.

806
00:48:10,120 --> 00:48:15,160
It's up in the hundreds of
millions of bits per second.

807
00:48:15,160 --> 00:48:16,950
Maybe its gigabits by now.

808
00:48:16,950 --> 00:48:18,380
Perhaps it is.

809
00:48:18,380 --> 00:48:20,130
And you've got this
Reed-Solomon --

810
00:48:20,130 --> 00:48:22,700
these are non-trivial
Reed-Solomon decoders.

811
00:48:22,700 --> 00:48:27,020
These are like this 16 error
correcting decoder out here.

812
00:48:27,020 --> 00:48:31,420
And so these are working away at
that data rate, capable of

813
00:48:31,420 --> 00:48:31,945
doing decoding.

814
00:48:31,945 --> 00:48:35,620
And they're cheap enough so that
they're just buried in

815
00:48:35,620 --> 00:48:38,990
part of one of the integrated
circuits in

816
00:48:38,990 --> 00:48:41,520
your disc player circuitry.

817
00:48:41,520 --> 00:48:47,150
So that'd give you a physical
sense for just how much error

818
00:48:47,150 --> 00:48:52,090
correction power and speed you
can get out of this class of

819
00:48:52,090 --> 00:48:57,050
code decoder, OK?

820
00:48:57,050 --> 00:49:01,110
So wherever you want an
extremely powerful code and

821
00:49:01,110 --> 00:49:03,470
you're a little bit less
concerned with getting to

822
00:49:03,470 --> 00:49:07,045
capacity, Reed-Solomon code
is the way to go.

823
00:49:07,045 --> 00:49:12,610
It's absolutely part of
your toolbox, OK?

824
00:49:17,520 --> 00:49:30,350
The last topic in chapter eight
is BCH codes, which are

825
00:49:30,350 --> 00:49:33,310
binary codes.

826
00:49:33,310 --> 00:49:39,760
So they're binary linear block
codes of the class we've been

827
00:49:39,760 --> 00:49:44,640
discussing, comparable with
Reed-Muller codes.

828
00:49:44,640 --> 00:49:48,960
Reed-Muller codes were
discovered in 1954 in two

829
00:49:48,960 --> 00:49:53,670
separate papers by Reed
and by Muller in two

830
00:49:53,670 --> 00:49:54,790
separate points of view.

831
00:49:54,790 --> 00:49:57,760
And there are a million points
of view you can have for

832
00:49:57,760 --> 00:49:58,470
Reed-Muller codes.

833
00:49:58,470 --> 00:50:00,050
We've used yet a third one.

834
00:50:02,590 --> 00:50:09,880
BCH stands for Bose and
Chaudhury and Hocquenghem.

835
00:50:09,880 --> 00:50:13,290
Bose and Chaudhury were both
professors in the US.

836
00:50:13,290 --> 00:50:18,310
They wrote a paper about 1960
introducing Reed-Solomon

837
00:50:18,310 --> 00:50:23,040
codes, which, by the way, and
introducing BC codes --

838
00:50:23,040 --> 00:50:25,240
Bose-Chaudhury codes --

839
00:50:25,240 --> 00:50:28,040
Reed-Solomon's paper
was in 1960 also.

840
00:50:28,040 --> 00:50:31,260
These were completely
independent of each other.

841
00:50:31,260 --> 00:50:35,660
And then this fellow named
Hocquenghem in France, whose

842
00:50:35,660 --> 00:50:41,230
name I can't and few people can
pronounce, turned out he

843
00:50:41,230 --> 00:50:45,770
had actually invented these
codes in 1959 in a paper that

844
00:50:45,770 --> 00:50:49,750
unfortunately was in French,
so few people read it.

845
00:50:49,750 --> 00:50:52,120
But anyway, in honor of all
three of these people, these

846
00:50:52,120 --> 00:50:54,340
are called BCH codes.

847
00:50:54,340 --> 00:50:58,070
These fit right into the main
theme of algebraic coding

848
00:50:58,070 --> 00:50:59,080
theory at that time.

849
00:50:59,080 --> 00:51:02,190
Maybe stimulated it because
these turned out to be cyclic

850
00:51:02,190 --> 00:51:05,920
codes, or at least as they were
originally introduced.

851
00:51:05,920 --> 00:51:15,130
And so when I was in school,
which was in the early '60s,

852
00:51:15,130 --> 00:51:18,590
these were considered the
greatest thing going.

853
00:51:18,590 --> 00:51:23,500
People were interested in binary
codes, algebraic codes

854
00:51:23,500 --> 00:51:29,570
because they are slightly better
than Reed-Muller codes.

855
00:51:29,570 --> 00:51:31,980
Now, I would say, there's sort
of been a swing back.

856
00:51:31,980 --> 00:51:35,780
Shu Lin gave a paper about
10 years ago that said

857
00:51:35,780 --> 00:51:38,140
Reed-Muller codes
are not so bad.

858
00:51:38,140 --> 00:51:41,140
In fact, in terms of performance
versus complexity

859
00:51:41,140 --> 00:51:43,690
for certain kinds of decoding
schemes, trellis-based

860
00:51:43,690 --> 00:51:48,000
decoding, Reed-Muller codes
are better than BCH codes.

861
00:51:48,000 --> 00:51:50,280
So from a more modern
prospective, we're more

862
00:51:50,280 --> 00:51:53,520
interested in Reed-Muller
than we are in BCH.

863
00:51:53,520 --> 00:51:57,790
Nonetheless, you'll hear about
these a lot if you read the

864
00:51:57,790 --> 00:52:01,780
literature and so you ought
to know what they are.

865
00:52:01,780 --> 00:52:02,560
OK.

866
00:52:02,560 --> 00:52:05,890
Conceptually, what are they?

867
00:52:05,890 --> 00:52:11,440
Since we already know about
Reed-Solomon codes, the way

868
00:52:11,440 --> 00:52:15,760
that I'm going to characterize
BCH codes is as subfield

869
00:52:15,760 --> 00:52:19,480
subcodes of the Reed-Solomon
codes.

870
00:52:19,480 --> 00:52:25,440
Now, if we have a Reed-Solomon
code over F2 to the 8 or

871
00:52:25,440 --> 00:52:32,800
something, the field with 256
elements, or any power of 2,

872
00:52:32,800 --> 00:52:37,240
contains a subfield which is
just 0 and 1, all right?

873
00:52:37,240 --> 00:52:40,760
All fields contains 0 and 1.

874
00:52:40,760 --> 00:52:43,500
If the field has characteristic
2, then 0 and 1

875
00:52:43,500 --> 00:52:47,730
all by themselves are
the prime subfield.

876
00:52:47,730 --> 00:52:51,490
So it's possible that there
are certain words in the

877
00:52:51,490 --> 00:52:55,660
Reed-Muller code -- sorry, in
the Reed-Solomon code that are

878
00:52:55,660 --> 00:52:58,760
completely made up
of 0's and 1's.

879
00:52:58,760 --> 00:53:00,740
For instance, the all-0 word
is certainly in the

880
00:53:00,740 --> 00:53:04,260
Reed-Solomon code, so we have,
at least, that one that's made

881
00:53:04,260 --> 00:53:05,890
up of all zeros.

882
00:53:05,890 --> 00:53:10,440
Almost always, we find that the
all-1 word is a code word.

883
00:53:10,440 --> 00:53:14,350
So we have a code with
all 0's and all 1's.

884
00:53:14,350 --> 00:53:16,140
And there might be
more of them.

885
00:53:16,140 --> 00:53:19,920
And that's actually very
straightforward, to find out

886
00:53:19,920 --> 00:53:25,290
how many completely binary
words there are in a

887
00:53:25,290 --> 00:53:26,540
Reed-Solomon code.

888
00:53:30,080 --> 00:53:37,080
So it's the binary subfield.

889
00:53:41,950 --> 00:53:55,080
We have F2 is a subfield of F2
to the M for all M. OK, so a

890
00:53:55,080 --> 00:54:07,650
subfield subcode, if we have
an n, k, d equals n minus k

891
00:54:07,650 --> 00:54:24,250
plus 1 Reed-Solomon code, then
the set of all BCH code is the

892
00:54:24,250 --> 00:54:32,780
set of all binary code words,
code words that just use the 0

893
00:54:32,780 --> 00:54:34,155
and 1 of the code alphabet.

894
00:54:39,160 --> 00:54:44,320
Call this c in C. So we
call this C prime.

895
00:54:48,780 --> 00:54:52,350
OK, so what are its parameters
going to be?

896
00:54:52,350 --> 00:54:56,600
Its length is still going
to be n, right?

897
00:54:56,600 --> 00:55:00,360
All the code words here are
n-tuples, so these have got to

898
00:55:00,360 --> 00:55:02,940
be n-tuples.

899
00:55:02,940 --> 00:55:04,230
We don't know its dimension.

900
00:55:04,230 --> 00:55:06,110
Let's just call it k prime.

901
00:55:06,110 --> 00:55:08,820
That's how many such code
words are there?

902
00:55:08,820 --> 00:55:14,190
We're going to have to
do some combinatorics

903
00:55:14,190 --> 00:55:17,230
to find that out.

904
00:55:17,230 --> 00:55:20,600
And what's the minimum
distance going to be?

905
00:55:20,600 --> 00:55:21,850
Anybody?

906
00:55:24,791 --> 00:55:27,629
AUDIENCE: [INAUDIBLE].

907
00:55:27,629 --> 00:55:32,360
PROFESSOR: In general, well,
it's certainly not going to be

908
00:55:32,360 --> 00:55:38,090
less than because, by definition
of the minimum

909
00:55:38,090 --> 00:55:41,270
distance, the minimum Hamming
distance between any two code

910
00:55:41,270 --> 00:55:45,730
words in this code is d, so
we're just looking at a subset

911
00:55:45,730 --> 00:55:47,990
of the code words
in this code.

912
00:55:47,990 --> 00:55:51,990
And the minimum squared distance
has to be at least d.

913
00:55:54,780 --> 00:55:56,730
There's an example given
in the notes.

914
00:55:56,730 --> 00:56:02,420
If we let c be the 4, 3 --

915
00:56:02,420 --> 00:56:11,110
I think it's the 4, 2, 3, over
F4, then C prime turns out to

916
00:56:11,110 --> 00:56:15,390
be the 4, 1, 4 code over F2.

917
00:56:19,390 --> 00:56:22,420
In other words, the only two
code words in this code that

918
00:56:22,420 --> 00:56:26,900
are all binary are the all-0
and all-1 sequences.

919
00:56:26,900 --> 00:56:27,310
All right?

920
00:56:27,310 --> 00:56:30,720
So we actually get a minimum
distance of 4.

921
00:56:30,720 --> 00:56:33,470
It has to be at least 3 in
this particular case, so

922
00:56:33,470 --> 00:56:38,170
here's an example where it
could be greater than 3.

923
00:56:38,170 --> 00:56:41,110
Or if there are cases where the
subcode just consists of

924
00:56:41,110 --> 00:56:45,080
the all-0 word, then that, by
convention, has an infinite

925
00:56:45,080 --> 00:56:47,330
minimum distance.

926
00:56:47,330 --> 00:56:51,270
So distance could be greater,
but it never can be less than

927
00:56:51,270 --> 00:56:52,980
what you started with.

928
00:56:52,980 --> 00:56:56,030
On the other hand,
the dimension is

929
00:56:56,030 --> 00:56:58,100
clearly going to go down.

930
00:56:58,100 --> 00:57:00,980
If it were still equal to what
it was, then we'd have a

931
00:57:00,980 --> 00:57:06,860
binary MDS code and we know we
don't get binary MDS codes.

932
00:57:06,860 --> 00:57:11,230
So in general, k prime decreases
quite a bit.

933
00:57:11,230 --> 00:57:14,640
In this case, it just
decreases by 1.

934
00:57:14,640 --> 00:57:17,035
And we have to find out
how it decreases.

935
00:57:22,510 --> 00:57:22,920
OK.

936
00:57:22,920 --> 00:57:33,060
I'm a little uncertain as to how
much of the derivation --

937
00:57:33,060 --> 00:57:34,535
so we need to find --

938
00:57:37,676 --> 00:57:38,878
AUDIENCE: Is that [INAUDIBLE]
at all points of

939
00:57:38,878 --> 00:57:40,128
the field, is it?

940
00:57:48,627 --> 00:57:51,320
PROFESSOR: No.

941
00:57:51,320 --> 00:57:54,830
One of the characterizations
you have of Reed-Solomon

942
00:57:54,830 --> 00:58:00,390
codes, I assume, was that
they're the set of all

943
00:58:00,390 --> 00:58:06,040
polynomials of length n that
evaluate to 0 at some

944
00:58:06,040 --> 00:58:12,310
consecutive set of n minus
k powers of alpha.

945
00:58:12,310 --> 00:58:13,690
Did you see anything
like that?

946
00:58:13,690 --> 00:58:14,881
AUDIENCE: Yes.

947
00:58:14,881 --> 00:58:16,030
PROFESSOR: All right.

948
00:58:16,030 --> 00:58:18,950
In other words, they're --

949
00:58:18,950 --> 00:58:33,450
let me write that down because
RS code is the set of all

950
00:58:33,450 --> 00:58:55,686
multiples f of x, g of x, of
degree less than n where of g

951
00:58:55,686 --> 00:59:04,560
of x equals the product of x
minus alpha to the i for i

952
00:59:04,560 --> 00:59:10,140
equals 0 to n minus k minus one
or something like that.

953
00:59:10,140 --> 00:59:13,870
This is called a generator
polynomial and --

954
00:59:13,870 --> 00:59:14,940
so what does this mean?

955
00:59:14,940 --> 00:59:18,480
In other language, all
polynomials of degree less

956
00:59:18,480 --> 00:59:23,220
than n that have roots
at 1 alpha, alpha

957
00:59:23,220 --> 00:59:26,030
squared, or so forth.

958
00:59:26,030 --> 00:59:30,330
It's better to make this i
equals 1 to n minus k.

959
00:59:30,330 --> 00:59:33,170
You can also make it minus i.

960
00:59:33,170 --> 00:59:36,090
There are lots of
details in here.

961
00:59:36,090 --> 00:59:38,950
But I'll just ask you broadly
to recall that

962
00:59:38,950 --> 00:59:40,570
characterization.

963
00:59:40,570 --> 00:59:41,270
This is a --

964
00:59:41,270 --> 00:59:44,024
AUDIENCE: I have another
question.

965
00:59:44,024 --> 00:59:46,319
[INAUDIBLE] are not linear?

966
00:59:46,319 --> 00:59:48,280
PROFESSOR: OK, let's ask that.

967
00:59:50,880 --> 00:59:58,340
So we've got a set of
binary n-tuples, OK,

968
00:59:58,340 --> 01:00:01,160
defined as the subset.

969
01:00:01,160 --> 01:00:02,720
So what do we need to
do to see whether

970
01:00:02,720 --> 01:00:03,560
it's linear or not?

971
01:00:03,560 --> 01:00:06,422
AUDIENCE: [INAUDIBLE].

972
01:00:06,422 --> 01:00:08,320
PROFESSOR: We just check
the group property.

973
01:00:08,320 --> 01:00:11,710
Is it closed under addition?

974
01:00:11,710 --> 01:00:14,150
Suppose we take two of these
code words we add them

975
01:00:14,150 --> 01:00:17,590
together, component-wise,
vector form.

976
01:00:20,360 --> 01:00:26,070
Seems to me we get A, that gives
us another code word in

977
01:00:26,070 --> 01:00:29,500
the Reed-Solomon code because
it's closed under addition,

978
01:00:29,500 --> 01:00:33,690
and B, by the addition rules,
it's going to be another

979
01:00:33,690 --> 01:00:37,950
binary code word, all right?

980
01:00:37,950 --> 01:00:40,450
So it's another binary code
word in the RS code,

981
01:00:40,450 --> 01:00:42,230
therefore, it's in C prime.

982
01:00:42,230 --> 01:00:45,670
So that's proof that, in fact,
this code is linear.

983
01:00:45,670 --> 01:00:49,250
AUDIENCE: What about
[INAUDIBLE]?

984
01:00:49,250 --> 01:00:50,620
PROFESSOR: That's trivial.

985
01:00:50,620 --> 01:00:53,190
For a binary code, we only
have to consider two

986
01:00:53,190 --> 01:00:54,610
scalars, 0 and 1.

987
01:00:54,610 --> 01:00:55,860
AUDIENCE: [INAUDIBLE]?

988
01:00:58,186 --> 01:01:00,160
PROFESSOR: But now I'm
asking whether this

989
01:01:00,160 --> 01:01:01,410
binary code is linear.

990
01:01:04,060 --> 01:01:05,310
There's the code over F2.

991
01:01:08,418 --> 01:01:08,901
Yes?

992
01:01:08,901 --> 01:01:09,867
You had a --

993
01:01:09,867 --> 01:01:11,450
AUDIENCE: Same question.

994
01:01:11,450 --> 01:01:16,260
The base field is F2 to the x,
so if you add 1 and 1 there,

995
01:01:16,260 --> 01:01:17,740
it wouldn't be just 0.

996
01:01:17,740 --> 01:01:22,138
But I guess if you restrict the
field to F2, you have to

997
01:01:22,138 --> 01:01:23,745
check everything again,
don't you?

998
01:01:23,745 --> 01:01:29,710
PROFESSOR: No, because we said
F2 is the subfield of F2 to

999
01:01:29,710 --> 01:01:34,230
the M. And what we actually
showed was that if you just

1000
01:01:34,230 --> 01:01:39,520
stay in the prime field, the
integers of the field, then

1001
01:01:39,520 --> 01:01:41,660
you get exactly the same
addition and multiplication

1002
01:01:41,660 --> 01:01:46,400
rules as you do in
the prime field.

1003
01:01:46,400 --> 01:01:50,570
So in fact, in a field of
characteristic 2, we always

1004
01:01:50,570 --> 01:01:57,710
have 0 plus 1 is 1, 0 plus 1
plus 0 is 1, 1 plus 1 is 0.

1005
01:01:57,710 --> 01:02:01,600
That last one is the only one
you really have to check.

1006
01:02:01,600 --> 01:02:05,840
So that accounts for the
definition of characteristic,

1007
01:02:05,840 --> 01:02:09,750
and that's the reason we can
always use just plus signs,

1008
01:02:09,750 --> 01:02:11,890
because subtraction is
the same as addition.

1009
01:02:11,890 --> 01:02:13,140
AUDIENCE: [INAUDIBLE]?

1010
01:02:16,128 --> 01:02:17,810
PROFESSOR: Yeah.

1011
01:02:17,810 --> 01:02:19,060
We showed --

1012
01:02:21,480 --> 01:02:24,255
well, very simple proof.

1013
01:02:28,290 --> 01:02:30,940
The order of a subgroup has
to define the order of

1014
01:02:30,940 --> 01:02:32,420
the group it's in.

1015
01:02:32,420 --> 01:02:35,570
The additive group of the prime
field has order 2 to the

1016
01:02:35,570 --> 01:02:38,480
M, so it has to be some divisor
of 2 to the M, which

1017
01:02:38,480 --> 01:02:39,730
is a prime.

1018
01:02:43,740 --> 01:02:45,930
I think we proved that another
way, but that's

1019
01:02:45,930 --> 01:02:49,330
a very simple proof.

1020
01:02:49,330 --> 01:02:54,350
OK, great questions, because it
shows you're thinking about

1021
01:02:54,350 --> 01:02:57,210
how this relates to what you
learned back in chapter seven.

1022
01:02:57,210 --> 01:03:00,420
But at this point you've kind
of got a little vague about

1023
01:03:00,420 --> 01:03:02,810
chapter seven, what's
really in there.

1024
01:03:02,810 --> 01:03:04,820
By Wednesday, you're really
going to know

1025
01:03:04,820 --> 01:03:05,900
chapter seven well.

1026
01:03:05,900 --> 01:03:07,150
Let me tell you.

1027
01:03:11,240 --> 01:03:12,640
OK.

1028
01:03:12,640 --> 01:03:14,370
Good.

1029
01:03:14,370 --> 01:03:16,290
Thank you for the help.

1030
01:03:16,290 --> 01:03:18,680
Because these are all things
that I should have just said

1031
01:03:18,680 --> 01:03:21,290
up here, but they come out much
better, actually, if they

1032
01:03:21,290 --> 01:03:22,700
come out in response
to questions.

1033
01:03:26,190 --> 01:03:27,440
OK.

1034
01:03:29,650 --> 01:03:36,990
So here's one characterization
of a Reed-Solomon code which

1035
01:03:36,990 --> 01:03:38,290
apparently you did see.

1036
01:03:38,290 --> 01:03:41,430
It's the set of all multiples of
some generator polynomial.

1037
01:03:41,430 --> 01:03:45,200
The generator polynomial is
described as this polynomial

1038
01:03:45,200 --> 01:03:53,290
of degree n minus k whose roots
are precisely alpha up

1039
01:03:53,290 --> 01:03:55,300
through alpha to
the n minus k.

1040
01:03:55,300 --> 01:03:56,890
You did say that?

1041
01:03:56,890 --> 01:03:58,140
OK.

1042
01:04:00,960 --> 01:04:10,460
So similarly, the BCH code --

1043
01:04:10,460 --> 01:04:14,030
I'm just going to assert this
just to show you how it goes.

1044
01:04:14,030 --> 01:04:27,550
It's the set of all multiples of
g prime of x, which is the

1045
01:04:27,550 --> 01:04:47,590
minimal degree binary
polynomial

1046
01:04:47,590 --> 01:04:50,610
with the same roots.

1047
01:04:55,810 --> 01:04:57,616
Now, how can a binary
polynomial --

1048
01:05:01,940 --> 01:05:06,158
alpha to the n minus k.

1049
01:05:06,158 --> 01:05:09,280
How can a binary polynomial
have non-binary roots?

1050
01:05:12,720 --> 01:05:15,290
Well, it clearly can.

1051
01:05:15,290 --> 01:05:18,615
Let's consider g
of prime of x.

1052
01:05:21,260 --> 01:05:29,030
It's an element of F2 to the x,
the set of all polynomials

1053
01:05:29,030 --> 01:05:37,550
over F2, which is a subset of
the set of all polynomials

1054
01:05:37,550 --> 01:05:39,390
over 2 to the M for
the same reason.

1055
01:05:39,390 --> 01:05:43,600
F2 is the subfield of F2 to
the M, so some of the

1056
01:05:43,600 --> 01:05:47,250
polynomials over F2 to the
M have purely binary

1057
01:05:47,250 --> 01:05:49,040
coefficients, all right?

1058
01:05:49,040 --> 01:05:51,950
So that's the sense --

1059
01:05:51,950 --> 01:05:54,615
that's how we can get between
these two things.

1060
01:06:05,260 --> 01:06:12,660
So some binary polynomials have
roots in GF of 2 the M

1061
01:06:12,660 --> 01:06:14,020
let me give you an example.

1062
01:06:16,890 --> 01:06:29,860
Let's consider x squared plus x
plus 1 as a polynomial in F4

1063
01:06:29,860 --> 01:06:37,320
of x, which is certainly is.

1064
01:06:37,320 --> 01:06:42,740
It's a polynomial of degree
2 and F4 of x.

1065
01:06:42,740 --> 01:06:45,740
What are its roots in F4 of x?

1066
01:06:45,740 --> 01:06:48,890
Does it have any roots
in F4 of x?

1067
01:06:48,890 --> 01:06:51,890
Does it have any
roots in F2 --

1068
01:06:51,890 --> 01:06:56,270
sorry, I'm asking whether
it has any roots in F4.

1069
01:06:56,270 --> 01:07:00,230
Now I step back and ask if
it has any roots in F2.

1070
01:07:00,230 --> 01:07:01,320
So how do we do that?

1071
01:07:01,320 --> 01:07:08,150
We just ask if F of x
is 0 for x equals 0.

1072
01:07:08,150 --> 01:07:09,080
We get 1.

1073
01:07:09,080 --> 01:07:12,680
So it's not a root of 0.

1074
01:07:12,680 --> 01:07:15,610
Substitute 1, we get
1 plus 1 plus 1.

1075
01:07:15,610 --> 01:07:19,340
1 is not a root F of x.

1076
01:07:19,340 --> 01:07:20,000
All right.

1077
01:07:20,000 --> 01:07:21,620
Well, we have two
more candidates.

1078
01:07:21,620 --> 01:07:23,416
How about alpha?

1079
01:07:23,416 --> 01:07:29,490
For alpha, we get F of alpha
equals alpha squared plus

1080
01:07:29,490 --> 01:07:32,700
alpha plus 1.

1081
01:07:32,700 --> 01:07:37,580
And if you remember the addition
table of F4, however

1082
01:07:37,580 --> 01:07:42,220
it's constructed, this
equals 0, OK?

1083
01:07:50,850 --> 01:07:52,925
0, 1, alpha, alpha, squared.

1084
01:07:52,925 --> 01:07:55,370
0, 1 alpha, alpha squared.

1085
01:07:55,370 --> 01:07:59,040
0, 1, alpha, alpha, squared.

1086
01:07:59,040 --> 01:08:00,706
This is plus.

1087
01:08:00,706 --> 01:08:03,190
1, alpha, alpha, squared.

1088
01:08:03,190 --> 01:08:06,850
0, 1 plus alpha is
alpha squared.

1089
01:08:06,850 --> 01:08:09,090
1 plus alpha squared is alpha.

1090
01:08:09,090 --> 01:08:12,130
Any of these is telling
you the same thing.

1091
01:08:12,130 --> 01:08:15,810
0, 1, 0, 1 alpha,
squared alpha.

1092
01:08:15,810 --> 01:08:19,819
So we conclude from that that 1
plus 1 plus alpha, which is

1093
01:08:19,819 --> 01:08:22,190
alpha squared, plus alpha
squared is 0.

1094
01:08:27,609 --> 01:08:32,020
So alpha is, in fact,
a root of this.

1095
01:08:32,020 --> 01:08:36,859
And what about F of
alpha squared?

1096
01:08:36,859 --> 01:08:41,100
Alpha squared squared is alpha
fourth, but we can

1097
01:08:41,100 --> 01:08:44,229
reduce that mod 3 --

1098
01:08:44,229 --> 01:08:45,520
the exponent mod 3.

1099
01:08:45,520 --> 01:08:50,350
So this is alpha plus alpha
squared plus 1 and that is

1100
01:08:50,350 --> 01:08:51,050
equal to 0.

1101
01:08:51,050 --> 01:08:56,580
So alpha and alpha squared are
roots of this polynomial.

1102
01:09:05,910 --> 01:09:28,859
There's a lovely fact proved
in the notes, which is that

1103
01:09:28,859 --> 01:09:37,800
every element of --

1104
01:09:37,800 --> 01:09:38,479
facts.

1105
01:09:38,479 --> 01:09:52,660
Every element of F2 to the
M is a root of x 2

1106
01:09:52,660 --> 01:09:54,790
to the M plus x.

1107
01:10:01,330 --> 01:10:03,490
OK, did you see something
like this last time?

1108
01:10:03,490 --> 01:10:05,025
I see some shaking of heads.

1109
01:10:10,010 --> 01:10:11,260
OK.

1110
01:10:13,210 --> 01:10:18,100
And how many roots could there
possibly be of x 2 to the M

1111
01:10:18,100 --> 01:10:20,195
plus x by the fundamental
theorem of algebra?

1112
01:10:20,195 --> 01:10:21,264
AUDIENCE: 2 to the M.

1113
01:10:21,264 --> 01:10:28,520
PROFESSOR: 2 to the M. So
that means that x 2 to

1114
01:10:28,520 --> 01:10:31,010
the M plus x --

1115
01:10:31,010 --> 01:10:39,570
and for every root, it's got to
have a factor of the form x

1116
01:10:39,570 --> 01:10:43,770
minus, or in this
case, plus beta.

1117
01:10:43,770 --> 01:10:46,590
So this must have a complete
factorization of

1118
01:10:46,590 --> 01:10:47,840
the following form.

1119
01:10:53,750 --> 01:10:58,625
x 2 to the M plus x is simply
the product of x minus beta.

1120
01:11:02,370 --> 01:11:03,620
All right.

1121
01:11:06,680 --> 01:11:11,190
In fact, you can see that
0 a root, obviously.

1122
01:11:11,190 --> 01:11:15,150
1 is a root, obviously.

1123
01:11:15,150 --> 01:11:20,730
And we've checked up here.

1124
01:11:20,730 --> 01:11:22,350
Let's see, what are
we interested in?

1125
01:11:22,350 --> 01:11:24,070
Here's another example.

1126
01:11:24,070 --> 01:11:28,770
x to the fourth plus
1, f of --

1127
01:11:28,770 --> 01:11:32,800
if we have g of x equals x to
the four -- sorry -- plus x,

1128
01:11:32,800 --> 01:11:38,620
then g of alpha is alpha to
the fourth plus alpha.

1129
01:11:38,620 --> 01:11:43,220
But alpha to the fourth is equal
to alpha, so that's 0.

1130
01:11:43,220 --> 01:11:47,450
g to the alpha squared
equals alpha to the

1131
01:11:47,450 --> 01:11:50,400
8th plus alpha squared.

1132
01:11:50,400 --> 01:11:53,570
Alpha to the 8th is alpha to the
fifth is alpha squared, so

1133
01:11:53,570 --> 01:11:55,140
that equals 0.

1134
01:11:55,140 --> 01:11:59,095
So, in fact, that's true
for that case.

1135
01:12:04,720 --> 01:12:38,450
Every irreducible polynomial g
of x and F2 of x whose degree

1136
01:12:38,450 --> 01:12:45,555
g of x divides 2 to the M --

1137
01:12:54,440 --> 01:12:56,350
is that right?

1138
01:12:56,350 --> 01:13:01,225
This may be 2 to
the M minus --

1139
01:13:05,230 --> 01:13:06,990
I think it's whose degree
divides M --

1140
01:13:11,290 --> 01:13:23,605
is a factor of x to the 2M
plus x in F2 to the x.

1141
01:13:29,910 --> 01:13:32,580
OK.

1142
01:13:32,580 --> 01:13:37,930
So let's give you an
example again.

1143
01:13:37,930 --> 01:13:41,220
Example M equals 2.

1144
01:13:41,220 --> 01:13:44,170
This means, what are the
irreducible polynomials whose

1145
01:13:44,170 --> 01:13:45,420
degrees divide 2?

1146
01:13:48,300 --> 01:13:59,320
The prime polynomials of degree
1 certainly divides to

1147
01:13:59,320 --> 01:14:03,890
our x and x plus 1.

1148
01:14:03,890 --> 01:14:08,240
Do they divide x to
the fourth plus 1?

1149
01:14:08,240 --> 01:14:09,490
Yeah, they do.

1150
01:14:13,390 --> 01:14:17,910
How many prime polynomials
are there of degree 2?

1151
01:14:17,910 --> 01:14:23,080
There's only one, x squared
plus x plus 1.

1152
01:14:23,080 --> 01:14:29,720
And if you divide it out into
x to the fourth plus 1, it

1153
01:14:29,720 --> 01:14:30,970
goes evenly.

1154
01:14:33,380 --> 01:14:42,610
It turns out that what this
implies is that this is

1155
01:14:42,610 --> 01:14:45,410
actually an if or only if.

1156
01:14:45,410 --> 01:14:50,990
A polynomial g of x divides x
to 2 to the M plus x if and

1157
01:14:50,990 --> 01:14:56,940
only if g of x has a degree
which divides M and g of x is

1158
01:14:56,940 --> 01:14:59,020
irreducible.

1159
01:14:59,020 --> 01:15:12,120
So this implies that x to the
M plus x factors in F2 of x

1160
01:15:12,120 --> 01:15:25,010
into the product of all
irreducible polynomials whose

1161
01:15:25,010 --> 01:15:32,780
degrees divide M. And I think
you did a homework problem

1162
01:15:32,780 --> 01:15:36,710
that used this, even though it
was never proved in class.

1163
01:15:36,710 --> 01:15:38,180
So you at least read about it.

1164
01:15:41,400 --> 01:15:45,430
Again, for this example, that
should mean that x to the

1165
01:15:45,430 --> 01:15:51,880
fourth plus 1 equals x times
x plus 1 times x

1166
01:15:51,880 --> 01:15:54,450
squared plus x plus 1.

1167
01:15:54,450 --> 01:15:55,700
Is that true?

1168
01:15:58,510 --> 01:16:00,320
Pretty easy to see that it is.

1169
01:16:00,320 --> 01:16:03,130
x plus 1 times x squared
plus x plus 1 is just

1170
01:16:03,130 --> 01:16:05,440
x cubed plus 1.

1171
01:16:05,440 --> 01:16:06,470
Multiply by x --

1172
01:16:06,470 --> 01:16:08,420
I'm sorry, this x
fourth plus x.

1173
01:16:08,420 --> 01:16:10,970
How many times have
I done this?

1174
01:16:10,970 --> 01:16:14,642
Should be x to the
fourth plus x.

1175
01:16:14,642 --> 01:16:17,390
Yes.

1176
01:16:17,390 --> 01:16:19,610
OK, it's kind of miracle
when you first see it.

1177
01:16:19,610 --> 01:16:26,950
This works over any field for
any PNM again, lest you get

1178
01:16:26,950 --> 01:16:28,200
this kind of factorization.

1179
01:16:30,740 --> 01:16:36,210
OK, but now, comparing this to
this, what does that mean?

1180
01:16:36,210 --> 01:16:42,290
That means this is one
factorization.

1181
01:16:42,290 --> 01:16:45,520
This is in --

1182
01:16:45,520 --> 01:16:48,050
we can do a complete
factorization in

1183
01:16:48,050 --> 01:16:50,400
F2 to the M of x.

1184
01:16:50,400 --> 01:16:55,470
We can only do complete in the
sense that we reduce it to a

1185
01:16:55,470 --> 01:16:58,350
product of degree
1 polynomials.

1186
01:16:58,350 --> 01:17:02,790
In F2 of x, we can't do a
complete factorization.

1187
01:17:02,790 --> 01:17:06,600
This is similar to, over the
complex field you can always

1188
01:17:06,600 --> 01:17:12,250
completely factor a polynomial
into one-dimensional

1189
01:17:12,250 --> 01:17:15,460
polynomials of this form, where
beta is the set of roots

1190
01:17:15,460 --> 01:17:16,900
of the polynomial.

1191
01:17:16,900 --> 01:17:21,910
Whereas over the real field,
you might have to have some

1192
01:17:21,910 --> 01:17:24,370
degree 2 polynomials in there.

1193
01:17:24,370 --> 01:17:26,340
This is exactly analogous.

1194
01:17:26,340 --> 01:17:28,660
You can't get complete

1195
01:17:28,660 --> 01:17:33,450
factorization over this subfield.

1196
01:17:33,450 --> 01:17:34,700
But what does it mean?

1197
01:17:34,700 --> 01:17:37,890
Here we have a polynomial of
degree 4, has 4 roots.

1198
01:17:37,890 --> 01:17:39,640
We factor like this.

1199
01:17:39,640 --> 01:17:43,380
So each of these factors must
contain a number of roots

1200
01:17:43,380 --> 01:17:45,670
equal to its degree.

1201
01:17:45,670 --> 01:17:47,280
So what are the roots?

1202
01:17:47,280 --> 01:17:51,170
This is the polynomial
that has root 0.

1203
01:17:51,170 --> 01:17:53,710
This is the polynomial
that has root 1.

1204
01:17:53,710 --> 01:17:56,710
As we just showed, this is the
polynomial that has the roots

1205
01:17:56,710 --> 01:17:59,074
alpha and alpha squared, OK?

1206
01:18:01,650 --> 01:18:05,290
So it's always going to
turn out that way.

1207
01:18:05,290 --> 01:18:14,430
So you can group the field
elements into subsets where

1208
01:18:14,430 --> 01:18:19,090
each subset is the set of roots
of some irreducible

1209
01:18:19,090 --> 01:18:25,480
binary polynomial of some degree
that divides M, OK?

1210
01:18:25,480 --> 01:18:29,390
These are called cyclotomic
subsets.

1211
01:18:29,390 --> 01:18:31,570
Whence the name of Elwyn
Berlekamp's company,

1212
01:18:31,570 --> 01:18:32,820
Cyclotomics.

1213
01:18:35,630 --> 01:18:36,090
All right.

1214
01:18:36,090 --> 01:18:41,100
So this is where, I think, the
theory gets just absolutely

1215
01:18:41,100 --> 01:18:44,350
lovely and unexpected, at
least when you start in.

1216
01:18:44,350 --> 01:18:46,950
And people who have a taste for
these things, I encourage

1217
01:18:46,950 --> 01:18:50,120
you to read a real book
on the subject.

1218
01:18:50,120 --> 01:18:53,340
Berlekamp's is one of
the most elegant.

1219
01:18:53,340 --> 01:18:54,280
But there are lots --

1220
01:18:54,280 --> 01:18:56,660
because it's an elegant subject,
there are lots of

1221
01:18:56,660 --> 01:18:59,560
elegant treatments of it.

1222
01:18:59,560 --> 01:19:01,590
All right.

1223
01:19:01,590 --> 01:19:03,520
So remember what we
were trying to do

1224
01:19:03,520 --> 01:19:04,480
in the first place.

1225
01:19:04,480 --> 01:19:13,510
We were trying to find the
dimension of BCH codes.

1226
01:19:13,510 --> 01:19:15,120
So where are we now?

1227
01:19:15,120 --> 01:19:25,960
We've defined a BCH code as
the set of all binary

1228
01:19:25,960 --> 01:19:39,270
polynomials with roots alpha up
to alpha to the n minus k

1229
01:19:39,270 --> 01:19:43,760
where n and k are the parameters
of the parent

1230
01:19:43,760 --> 01:19:44,760
Reed-Solomon code.

1231
01:19:44,760 --> 01:19:47,618
And alpha is in the
parent field.

1232
01:19:47,618 --> 01:19:50,250
So alpha in

1233
01:19:50,250 --> 01:19:55,920
F2 to the M. OK.

1234
01:19:55,920 --> 01:19:58,835
One final fact, I guess,
we need to know here.

1235
01:20:01,415 --> 01:20:05,850
All right, if alpha is a
root -- now I'm talking

1236
01:20:05,850 --> 01:20:08,540
about any field --

1237
01:20:08,540 --> 01:20:13,160
then alpha squared is a root
of a binary polynomial.

1238
01:20:18,480 --> 01:20:22,160
And again, this is due to a
very lovely fact, which is

1239
01:20:22,160 --> 01:20:29,090
that squaring is linear in
fields of characteristic 2.

1240
01:20:29,090 --> 01:20:31,045
Why is squaring linear.

1241
01:20:31,045 --> 01:20:33,530
A little side calculation.

1242
01:20:33,530 --> 01:20:38,410
a plus b squared equals a
squared plus 2ab plus b

1243
01:20:38,410 --> 01:20:41,340
squared but characteristic 2.

1244
01:20:41,340 --> 01:20:43,450
We can wipe that out.

1245
01:20:43,450 --> 01:20:54,240
So in general, f of x quantity
squared is f of x squared.

1246
01:20:58,120 --> 01:21:03,520
And that's why, if f of x
evaluates to 0, then f of x

1247
01:21:03,520 --> 01:21:09,740
squared must evaluate to 0
since 0 squared is always

1248
01:21:09,740 --> 01:21:11,910
equal to 0.

1249
01:21:11,910 --> 01:21:12,360
All right.

1250
01:21:12,360 --> 01:21:17,330
So alpha is a root if and only
if alpha squared is a root.

1251
01:21:17,330 --> 01:21:18,380
Is that true here?

1252
01:21:18,380 --> 01:21:18,900
Yes.

1253
01:21:18,900 --> 01:21:20,460
Alpha alpha squared.

1254
01:21:20,460 --> 01:21:23,080
Well, is it also true if we
squared alpha squared?

1255
01:21:23,080 --> 01:21:25,430
What is the square
of alpha squared?

1256
01:21:25,430 --> 01:21:27,800
It's back to alpha, all right?

1257
01:21:27,800 --> 01:21:36,720
So these sets now turn out to be
cyclotomic cosets, they're

1258
01:21:36,720 --> 01:21:39,130
called, which is the set of all

1259
01:21:39,130 --> 01:21:41,740
elements and their squares.

1260
01:21:41,740 --> 01:21:46,360
We get alpha, alpha squared,
alpha fourth, alpha eighth.

1261
01:21:46,360 --> 01:21:48,170
And then, at some point,
it cycles.

1262
01:21:48,170 --> 01:21:49,420
Why?

1263
01:21:49,420 --> 01:21:51,620
Because what does alpha
to the 2M equal?

1264
01:21:51,620 --> 01:21:52,552
AUDIENCE: [INAUDIBLE].

1265
01:21:52,552 --> 01:21:55,820
PROFESSOR: No.

1266
01:21:55,820 --> 01:21:56,710
Alpha.

1267
01:21:56,710 --> 01:21:57,120
Right.

1268
01:21:57,120 --> 01:22:01,350
Alpha to the 2M minus 1 is 1,
so alpha to the 2M is alpha.

1269
01:22:01,350 --> 01:22:05,680
So it comes back to alpha
again because of that.

1270
01:22:05,680 --> 01:22:08,670
So we get a finite number of
roots which, of course, are

1271
01:22:08,670 --> 01:22:10,810
equal to the degree here.

1272
01:22:10,810 --> 01:22:13,306
In some cases, it's fewer.

1273
01:22:13,306 --> 01:22:14,830
It's whatever the degree is.

1274
01:22:14,830 --> 01:22:23,980
It's d, which divides M.

1275
01:22:23,980 --> 01:22:27,360
So from this, we
simply start --

1276
01:22:27,360 --> 01:22:30,930
suppose we want alpha
to be a root.

1277
01:22:30,930 --> 01:22:36,180
Let's start with high
rate codes.

1278
01:22:36,180 --> 01:22:44,140
I think here in the example,
in the text, I used F16.

1279
01:22:44,140 --> 01:22:47,860
F16 is going to have --

1280
01:22:47,860 --> 01:22:54,110
the elements of F16 are going
to be the roots of all the

1281
01:22:54,110 --> 01:22:59,830
degree 1, 2, and 4 polynomials
because M is 4 and these are

1282
01:22:59,830 --> 01:23:01,320
the degrees that divide 4.

1283
01:23:01,320 --> 01:23:11,300
So again, we get x and x plus
1, which have roots 0 and 1.

1284
01:23:11,300 --> 01:23:15,720
We get x squared
plus x plus 1.

1285
01:23:15,720 --> 01:23:19,870
What are the roots of x squared
plus x plus 1 and F16?

1286
01:23:19,870 --> 01:23:22,520
There are only going to be two
of them and they've got to

1287
01:23:22,520 --> 01:23:28,770
have the property that if we
start with the first one,

1288
01:23:28,770 --> 01:23:32,300
let's call it beta
and beta squared.

1289
01:23:32,300 --> 01:23:34,640
Beta fourth has got to
equal beta because we

1290
01:23:34,640 --> 01:23:36,960
only have two of them.

1291
01:23:36,960 --> 01:23:43,040
That more or less forces beta
to be alpha to the fifth or

1292
01:23:43,040 --> 01:23:45,410
alpha to the tenth.

1293
01:23:45,410 --> 01:23:48,300
Let's see if that works.

1294
01:23:48,300 --> 01:23:51,680
We get alpha to the fifth,
alpha to the tenth.

1295
01:23:51,680 --> 01:23:54,400
Square that, we get
alpha to the 20th.

1296
01:23:54,400 --> 01:23:57,770
But we now take the exponents
mod 15 and we get

1297
01:23:57,770 --> 01:24:00,440
5 again, all right?

1298
01:24:00,440 --> 01:24:04,350
So those are the two
roots of x squared

1299
01:24:04,350 --> 01:24:05,990
plus x plus 1 in F16.

1300
01:24:09,220 --> 01:24:10,920
Obviously, I'm not --

1301
01:24:10,920 --> 01:24:13,340
I guess that was a legitimate
proof, but it

1302
01:24:13,340 --> 01:24:15,810
was certainly quick.

1303
01:24:15,810 --> 01:24:18,690
OK, there are three polynomials
of degree 4.

1304
01:24:18,690 --> 01:24:22,850
By the way, I think you can
imagine how, given this

1305
01:24:22,850 --> 01:24:27,210
result, we can now
enumerate the

1306
01:24:27,210 --> 01:24:29,450
polynomials of each degree.

1307
01:24:29,450 --> 01:24:31,300
We now have an expression.

1308
01:24:35,350 --> 01:24:40,360
There are two irreducible
polynomials of degree 1.

1309
01:24:40,360 --> 01:24:43,290
So how many more of degree 2
is it going to take to make

1310
01:24:43,290 --> 01:24:44,770
the overall degree 4?

1311
01:24:44,770 --> 01:24:45,560
One of them.

1312
01:24:45,560 --> 01:24:47,160
So we're looking
for a single --

1313
01:24:47,160 --> 01:24:48,870
there must be a single
irreducible

1314
01:24:48,870 --> 01:24:50,620
polynomial degree 4.

1315
01:24:50,620 --> 01:24:54,150
Similarly over here, all right,
we've accounted for

1316
01:24:54,150 --> 01:24:56,640
four of the elements of F16.

1317
01:24:56,640 --> 01:24:59,810
The only other possible degree
we could have is 4.

1318
01:24:59,810 --> 01:25:03,320
So how many irreducible
polynomials are there of

1319
01:25:03,320 --> 01:25:07,460
degree 4 over in F 2 of x?

1320
01:25:07,460 --> 01:25:08,320
Must be three of them.

1321
01:25:08,320 --> 01:25:11,240
And it always works out.

1322
01:25:11,240 --> 01:25:14,330
So, from this you can get a
closed-form combinatorial

1323
01:25:14,330 --> 01:25:18,720
formula again in terms of the
Mobius inversion formula.

1324
01:25:18,720 --> 01:25:22,740
By doing a sieve or by some
other method, you can find out

1325
01:25:22,740 --> 01:25:31,840
that the three irreducible
polynomials of degree 4 are

1326
01:25:31,840 --> 01:25:36,850
those three and the
corresponding roots

1327
01:25:36,850 --> 01:25:38,580
for this one --

1328
01:25:38,580 --> 01:25:41,790
if this is the irreducible
polynomial you use to define

1329
01:25:41,790 --> 01:25:45,100
the field, then alpha is a root
of it and you're going to

1330
01:25:45,100 --> 01:25:49,060
get alpha, alpha squared,
alpha fourth,

1331
01:25:49,060 --> 01:25:50,560
alpha to the eightth.

1332
01:25:50,560 --> 01:25:53,110
Alpha to the eightth squared is
alpha to the 16th, but that

1333
01:25:53,110 --> 01:25:55,240
equals alpha, OK?

1334
01:25:55,240 --> 01:25:58,670
So these are the roots
of that equation.

1335
01:25:58,670 --> 01:25:59,920
Here you get --

1336
01:26:02,740 --> 01:26:06,940
sorry, x fourth plus x third
plus 1, since that's basically

1337
01:26:06,940 --> 01:26:12,060
the reverse of this, turns out
you get alpha to the minus 1,

1338
01:26:12,060 --> 01:26:16,070
which is alpha to the 1fourth.

1339
01:26:16,070 --> 01:26:19,860
Square that and you get alpha to
the minus 2, which is alpha

1340
01:26:19,860 --> 01:26:22,950
to the 13th, or equivalently,
alpha to the 28 --

1341
01:26:22,950 --> 01:26:25,320
reduces to thirteen.

1342
01:26:25,320 --> 01:26:28,980
This becomes alpha the 11th,
alpha to the seventh.

1343
01:26:28,980 --> 01:26:30,730
and then alpha to the seventh
gives you alpha

1344
01:26:30,730 --> 01:26:31,930
to the 1fourth again.

1345
01:26:31,930 --> 01:26:33,898
AUDIENCE: [INAUDIBLE]

1346
01:26:33,898 --> 01:26:39,310
same thing about taking the
square [INAUDIBLE]?

1347
01:26:39,310 --> 01:26:40,294
PROFESSOR: Correct.

1348
01:26:40,294 --> 01:26:41,770
AUDIENCE: --from the
[INAUDIBLE]?

1349
01:26:41,770 --> 01:26:45,390
PROFESSOR: Because you go
around in a circle.

1350
01:26:45,390 --> 01:26:47,090
So it's a finite set.

1351
01:26:47,090 --> 01:26:51,160
So you can obviously
divide by 2.

1352
01:26:51,160 --> 01:26:54,840
So there's one cyclotomic
coset.

1353
01:26:54,840 --> 01:26:56,540
Here's the second one.

1354
01:26:56,540 --> 01:26:58,960
And then the third one must
be whatever's left over.

1355
01:26:58,960 --> 01:26:59,710
What's left over?

1356
01:26:59,710 --> 01:27:02,040
We don't have alpha
to the third yet.

1357
01:27:02,040 --> 01:27:07,680
Alpha to the third, alpha to the
sixth, alpha to the 12th,

1358
01:27:07,680 --> 01:27:11,740
and then alpha to the 2fourth,
which is alpha to the ninth.

1359
01:27:11,740 --> 01:27:15,558
And alpha to the 18th is equal
alpha to the third again.

1360
01:27:18,190 --> 01:27:21,120
OK, what's the moral of this?

1361
01:27:21,120 --> 01:27:23,660
We want to start off with --

1362
01:27:23,660 --> 01:27:25,850
let's just take a look
at the Reed-Solomon,

1363
01:27:25,850 --> 01:27:27,380
the very first one.

1364
01:27:27,380 --> 01:27:31,680
We just want n minus k to be 1
and we just want to have root

1365
01:27:31,680 --> 01:27:34,695
alpha in here.

1366
01:27:34,695 --> 01:27:38,660
Well, if we get root alpha,
we're going to get root alpha

1367
01:27:38,660 --> 01:27:45,070
squared, alpha fourth and alpha
eightth along with it.

1368
01:27:45,070 --> 01:27:47,940
If we want a binary polynomial
with root alpha,

1369
01:27:47,940 --> 01:27:49,065
it has to this one.

1370
01:27:49,065 --> 01:27:52,250
And it's going to
have four roots.

1371
01:27:52,250 --> 01:27:52,700
All right.

1372
01:27:52,700 --> 01:28:05,370
So for root alpha, we're going
to get x fourth plus x plus 1

1373
01:28:05,370 --> 01:28:07,840
as our generator polynomial.

1374
01:28:07,840 --> 01:28:09,260
And it's actually going
to have roots

1375
01:28:09,260 --> 01:28:11,190
alpha and alpha squared.

1376
01:28:11,190 --> 01:28:13,540
So it's going to be the same
one as you would get if you

1377
01:28:13,540 --> 01:28:15,860
wanted alpha and
alpha squared.

1378
01:28:15,860 --> 01:28:23,700
That means n minus k is already
up to 2, which means

1379
01:28:23,700 --> 01:28:26,900
your distance is already
up to 3.

1380
01:28:26,900 --> 01:28:29,760
Distance is n minus k plus 1.

1381
01:28:29,760 --> 01:28:36,630
So this leads to a code
with n equals 16 --

1382
01:28:36,630 --> 01:28:37,850
is that right?

1383
01:28:37,850 --> 01:28:39,100
Yes.

1384
01:28:40,920 --> 01:28:45,420
BCH codes are always defined
to be one shorter.

1385
01:28:45,420 --> 01:28:58,660
We're going to have four
redundant bits, so k equals 12

1386
01:28:58,660 --> 01:29:01,530
and distance equals 3.

1387
01:29:04,530 --> 01:29:06,113
I think that's not
quite right.

1388
01:29:11,430 --> 01:29:16,490
When we're doing BCH codes,
they're always defined just on

1389
01:29:16,490 --> 01:29:20,630
the non-zero elements
of the field.

1390
01:29:20,630 --> 01:29:28,090
So we start with the shorter
Read-Solomon code of

1391
01:29:28,090 --> 01:29:30,960
length q minus 1.

1392
01:29:30,960 --> 01:29:32,940
15 in this case rather
than 16.

1393
01:29:35,600 --> 01:29:41,530
And 0 never appears here as
one of the possible roots.

1394
01:29:41,530 --> 01:29:42,900
So let me just do that.

1395
01:29:42,900 --> 01:29:46,170
I apologize I haven't
carried through all

1396
01:29:46,170 --> 01:29:48,110
the possible steps.

1397
01:29:48,110 --> 01:29:52,000
So we're getting all of the
polynomial multiples of x

1398
01:29:52,000 --> 01:29:57,230
fourth plus x plus 1 of degree
less or equal to

1399
01:29:57,230 --> 01:29:59,560
14 rather than 15.

1400
01:29:59,560 --> 01:30:01,610
So it's n equals 15.

1401
01:30:01,610 --> 01:30:05,610
n minus k is going to be 4.

1402
01:30:05,610 --> 01:30:07,220
So this is 11.

1403
01:30:07,220 --> 01:30:11,280
And the distance is going to
be greater than equal to 3.

1404
01:30:11,280 --> 01:30:13,160
In fact, it is 3.

1405
01:30:13,160 --> 01:30:18,160
So it's a 15, 11, 3
code, which is, in

1406
01:30:18,160 --> 01:30:20,040
fact, the Hamming code.

1407
01:30:20,040 --> 01:30:20,450
Yes?

1408
01:30:20,450 --> 01:30:21,350
AUDIENCE: [INAUDIBLE]

1409
01:30:21,350 --> 01:30:24,110
PROFESSOR: Oh, I'm sorry.

1410
01:30:24,110 --> 01:30:27,080
Wasn't this fun?

1411
01:30:27,080 --> 01:30:28,592
You're supposed to
do that, Ashish.

1412
01:30:28,592 --> 01:30:29,476
AUDIENCE: [INAUDIBLE].

1413
01:30:29,476 --> 01:30:34,420
PROFESSOR: OK, well, so you
can see how it goes.

1414
01:30:34,420 --> 01:30:37,770
So this gets us both roots
alpha and alpha squared.

1415
01:30:37,770 --> 01:30:42,540
If we want alpha third and alpha
fourth, we already have

1416
01:30:42,540 --> 01:30:45,000
alpha fourth from
this polynomial.

1417
01:30:45,000 --> 01:30:49,800
So all we need is this one,
which gets us another.

1418
01:30:49,800 --> 01:30:55,166
And that gives us an n equals
15, k equals 7, d greater than

1419
01:30:55,166 --> 01:31:01,170
or equal to 5, which, in fact,
is a 15, 7, 5 code.

1420
01:31:01,170 --> 01:31:03,620
So we get additional codes.

1421
01:31:03,620 --> 01:31:06,130
There's a table in there that
shows you that most the time

1422
01:31:06,130 --> 01:31:09,790
for short block lengths for
distances which are equal to a

1423
01:31:09,790 --> 01:31:12,060
prime power, we get the
same parameters

1424
01:31:12,060 --> 01:31:13,320
as Reed-Muller codes.

1425
01:31:13,320 --> 01:31:16,070
For lengths 64 and higher,
sometimes we do

1426
01:31:16,070 --> 01:31:17,300
a little bit better.

1427
01:31:17,300 --> 01:31:21,560
In addition, we get a lot more
codes for every, basically,

1428
01:31:21,560 --> 01:31:24,740
odd distance when you take the
length odd or even distance if

1429
01:31:24,740 --> 01:31:26,300
you take the length even.

1430
01:31:30,010 --> 01:31:32,670
And that's definitely an asset,
that you have a larger

1431
01:31:32,670 --> 01:31:34,620
number of codes to
choose from.

1432
01:31:34,620 --> 01:31:38,210
So there's no doubt that in
terms n, k, d, BCH is the

1433
01:31:38,210 --> 01:31:42,480
larger and, for longer block
length, slightly better class

1434
01:31:42,480 --> 01:31:43,750
than Reed-Muller codes.

1435
01:31:43,750 --> 01:31:46,110
But as I said before, in terms
of performance versus

1436
01:31:46,110 --> 01:31:48,450
complexity, Reed-Muller
might still be the

1437
01:31:48,450 --> 01:31:49,730
ones you want to use.

1438
01:31:49,730 --> 01:31:50,220
OK.

1439
01:31:50,220 --> 01:31:52,640
Good luck in the review and
good luck in the exam.

1440
01:31:52,640 --> 01:31:53,890
I will see you Wednesday.