Is G a DFT Matrix in Soft-decision Decoding of Polar Codes?

  • Thread starter Thread starter ait.abd
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Dft Matrix
ait.abd
Messages
24
Reaction score
0
I am reading the following paper:
Soft-decision decoding of polar codes with Reed-Solomon kernels

On the last line of the page 319 (page 3 of the pdf) the author says "and G is a Reed-Solomon kernel, which is in fact a DFT matrix".

G is defined on the page 321 (page 5 of the pdf) with possible change in the order of rows as
$$
G = \left( \begin{array}{cccc}
1 & 1 & 1 & 0 \\
1 & \alpha & \alpha^2 & 0 \\
1 & \alpha^2 & \alpha & 0 \\
1 & 1 & 1 & 1\end{array} \right),
$$

where \alpha is a primitive element of \mathbf{F}_{2^2}.

I do not understand why the author calls G as a DFT matrix, because DFT matrix does not have zeros in its general form. The general form that I am considering is the following:
Wikipedia Link.

Can anyone explain the following:
1. Why G is a DFT matrix?
2. If it is a DFT matrix, how can we implement it using FFT? I am looking for the butterfly structure that will implement it.

Thanks for your time.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
I can only assume that it is sufficient to consider the DFT submatrix, because the paper is about computational complexity and zeros might not count, as they do not lead to calculation steps.
 
I asked online questions about Proposition 2.1.1: The answer I got is the following: I have some questions about the answer I got. When the person answering says: ##1.## Is the map ##\mathfrak{q}\mapsto \mathfrak{q} A _\mathfrak{p}## from ##A\setminus \mathfrak{p}\to A_\mathfrak{p}##? But I don't understand what the author meant for the rest of the sentence in mathematical notation: ##2.## In the next statement where the author says: How is ##A\to...
The following are taken from the two sources, 1) from this online page and the book An Introduction to Module Theory by: Ibrahim Assem, Flavio U. Coelho. In the Abelian Categories chapter in the module theory text on page 157, right after presenting IV.2.21 Definition, the authors states "Image and coimage may or may not exist, but if they do, then they are unique up to isomorphism (because so are kernels and cokernels). Also in the reference url page above, the authors present two...
##\textbf{Exercise 10}:## I came across the following solution online: Questions: 1. When the author states in "that ring (not sure if he is referring to ##R## or ##R/\mathfrak{p}##, but I am guessing the later) ##x_n x_{n+1}=0## for all odd $n$ and ##x_{n+1}## is invertible, so that ##x_n=0##" 2. How does ##x_nx_{n+1}=0## implies that ##x_{n+1}## is invertible and ##x_n=0##. I mean if the quotient ring ##R/\mathfrak{p}## is an integral domain, and ##x_{n+1}## is invertible then...
Back
Top