Weight and distance of a binary code

  • Context:
  • Thread starter Thread starter annie122
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Binary Code Weight
Join the discussion
Ask a follow-up here, or get your own question answered by working scientists, mathematicians and engineers — people, not an autocomplete.
Real named experts · corrections over time · the nuance an AI answer skips
2 replies · 3K views
annie122
Messages
51
Reaction score
0
Is there a relationship between the distance and weight of a binary code?
I want to find the weight and distance of the code consisting of the codewords:

0000 0000
0010 1110
0101 1100
1011 1010
1110 0101
1100 1011
0111 0011
1001 0111

(spaces inserted for readability)

The weight can be checked easily by hand, but I don't want to check 21 distances.
Is there a quicker way?

One idea I had is [tex]d(C) \leq min(w(ci) + w(cj))[/tex], from the triangle inequality.
 
on Phys.org
Re: weight and distance of a binary code

Yuuki said:
Is there a relationship between the distance and weight of a binary code?
I want to find the weight and distance of the code consisting of the codewords:

0000 0000
0010 1110
0101 1100
1011 1010
1110 0101
1100 1011
0111 0011
1001 0111

(spaces inserted for readability)

The weight can be checked easily by hand, but I don't want to check 21 distances.
Is there a quicker way?

One idea I had is [tex]d(C) \leq min(w(ci) + w(cj))[/tex], from the triangle inequality.

The 'brute force procedure' for find the minimum distance in a code of size M=8 requires to check 7 + 6 + 5 + 4 + 3 + 2 + 1 = 28 distances... ... just a little question : in Your formula what are $C_{i}$ and $C_{j}$?... Kind regards $\chi$ $\sigma$
 
The 'brute force procedure' for find the minimum distance in a code of size M=8 requires to check 7 + 6 + 5 + 4 + 3 + 2 + 1 = 28 distances...
I said 21 because I already know the distance from the code 0000 0000 from the calculation of the weights.

... just a little question : in Your formula what are Ci and Cj?
They are two different codewords.
I should have written this there, sorry.