# Talk:Reed–Muller code

Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Mathematics (Rated C-class, Low-importance)
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Mathematics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Mathematics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Mathematics rating:
 C Class
 Low Importance
Field:  Discrete mathematics

## Construction

I think: ${\displaystyle X=\mathbb {F} _{2}^{d}=\{x_{1},\ldots ,x_{2^{d}}\}.}$ should read: ${\displaystyle X=\mathbb {F} _{2}^{n}=\{x_{1},\ldots ,x_{2^{d}}\}.}$

otherwise you have a mismatch in the number of dimensions 131.111.243.37 (talk) 23:11, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Not true. Have made the construction in the article a bit clearer. The things in the curly braces are points, not the values of coordinates. Trogsworth (talk) 23:29, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

The confusion arises because the contents in the item bounded by the curly braces may be considered a vector or a set. In this case, it is intended to be a set.Norm16wiki (talk) 15:51, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

## still wrong notation

The confusion between d and r is not fixed--still wrong in the first paragraph, at least if you're going to use the notation RM(d,r), where r is the order. The length should be d=2^n e.g. With these changes in the first paragraph, the rest of the page seems OK.

Steve —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.233.119.183 (talk) 13:13, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

I went through the article and attempted to clear up all of the inconsistency and confusion around the use of the d, r, n, m notation. I adopted the conventional RM(r,m) notation. I attempted to use Forney's notation of RM(r,n), where the code length is N=2^n, but I changed n to m for consistency with other contributors.Norm16wiki (talk) 21:27, 30 May 2016 (UTC) [1][2] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Norm16wiki (talkcontribs) 21:25, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

## Notations

I think that it would be better to use the more common notation RM(r,m) instead of RM(d,r). The current notation leads to a confsion with the code distance. Moreover, RM(r,m) is more common in the literature (like in one of the most known books: S. Lin and D. J. Costello - Error Control Coding).

## Templates: CCSDS is pretty obscure; where is "Error Correction Coding"?

It's amusing that the only template is the "Consultative Committee for Space Data Systems", which is useful for only a rather exclusive group. I'd love an "Error Correction Coding" template. Sanpitch (talk) 15:42, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

## Not suited to much of its audience

This article is suited neither to the intoxicated nor to the ill educated. Let's have it somewhat simpler, please. Or work a dancing monkey into it somehow so that everyone gets something from it. 86.170.7.13 (talk) 21:06, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

Well, looks like there's consensus here. Image added. 86.170.7.13 (talk) 21:42, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
Agreed. 81.98.14.109 (talk) 23:19, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

I guess I am another representative of the ill educated (BS in math/physics not withstanding, insult not required). This is a member of a family of articles which are rendered opaque by the use of a specific notation which is, itself, not readily searchable. For starters, it would have helped me follow if it had started out defining the hollow F super N sub 2 as 'the set of all N digit numbers of base 2". I'm still puzzling over the (hollow I sub A)sub i. I suppose this notation is used in some series of math courses or textbooks that I haven't read. I'd be happy to learn it but for that I need a link. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2620:149:5:2102:8137:BD41:7D01:1FCA (talk) 21:27, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

## Properties

I attempted to improve the clarity of the proof of Property 1. The notation used earlier had scalars being added to vectors, and had checks of equality between scalars and vectors. I found that confusing, and I think I have captured what the earlier contribution intended. Norm16wiki (talk) 21:35, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

1. ^ G. D. Forney, “Coset codes. I. Introduction and geometrical classification,” IEEE Trans. Inf. Theory, vol. 34, no. 5, pp. 1123–1151, 1988.
2. ^ G. D. Forney, “Coset codes. II. Binary lattices and related codes,” IEEE Trans. Inf. Theory, vol. 34, no. 5, pp. 1152–1187, 1988.