Changes between Initial Version and Version 1 of Ticket #19623, comment 21


Ignore:
Timestamp:
01/25/16 17:02:06 (6 years ago)
Author:
dlucas
Comment:

Legend:

Unmodified
Added
Removed
Modified
  • Ticket #19623, comment 21

    initial v1  
    33Of course they are, I'm perfectly aware of that! I was not criticising the usefulness of it, I was just saying it seems quite difficult and a bit out of purpose in this ticket.
    44
    5 Secondly, I hope you realise that this is "just" yet another example of the usefulness of a general mechanism for specifying upper- and lower-bounds on the minimum distance of a code, and it shows that, indeed as could have been expected, that minimum distance is *not* special in this regard: there are other parameters for which me might want such a mechanism (in this case, covering radius).
     5> Secondly, I hope you realise that this is "just" yet another example of the usefulness of a general mechanism for specifying upper- and lower-bounds on the minimum distance of a code, and it shows that, indeed as could have been expected, that minimum distance is *not* special in this regard: there are other parameters for which me might want such a mechanism (in this case, covering radius).
    66
    77Definitely. `dimension` should be added to this list of lower- and upper-bounds...
    8 I realized that while working on shortened codes (and subfield subcodes as well).
     8I realized that while working on shortened codes (and subfield subcodes as well). Well, this mechanism is actually useful with any code manipulation class.
    99
    1010