What would annoy me is less-than-full disclosure of the transmitted
signal and its properties. For example, there's a claim in the paper
that the (31 26) Hamming code used can detect double-bit errors in the
encoded time.
You are right. The standard Hamming code: detect and correct 1
(3,1)
(7,4)
(15,11)
(31,26)
Add a parity bit and you can detect 2 errors.
There's also an (11,8) code that can detect 2, correct 1
And a (72,64) which works and uses the same number of bits as a (9,8)
parity check, with the advantage of detecting 2 and correcting 1.
Maybe there's another parity bit in the system somewhere, too.
I think detecting double-bit errors would require an
additional parity bit, and that the assertion in the paper is just a
boo-boo, but I also keep wondering if the claim might in fact be true,
that there might be a really clever way to use that with something else
in the signal to detect double-bit errors, and the paper just isn't
pointing that out. That would be annoying.
Dennis Ferguson
_______________________________________________
time-nuts mailing list -- time-nuts@febo.com
To unsubscribe, go to https://www.febo.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/time-nuts
and follow the instructions there.
_______________________________________________
time-nuts mailing list -- time-nuts@febo.com
To unsubscribe, go to https://www.febo.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/time-nuts
and follow the instructions there.
