Documente Academic
Documente Profesional
Documente Cultură
The Wozen
raft
onstru
tion gives a 2O(n) time algorithm for
onstru
ting [n; k; d℄2
odes. We pi
k up
where we left o in the last le
ture. Re
all our goal is to
onstru
t a family of sets S1 ; S2 ; : : : ; St
f0; 1gn 0 su
h that
1. The sets are pairwise disjoint.
2. 8i, Si [ f0g is a linear subspa
e of f0; 1gn.
3. t Vol(d; n).
4. 8i; j : jSi j = 2k 1.
We saw last le
ture that if we
an
onstru
t su
h a family of sets, one of these sets will yield a [n; k; d℄2
ode. Today we will see Wozen
raft's
onstru
tion of su
h a family of sets. We will show the
onstru
tion
only n = 2k. It is fairly simple to generalize it to a
onstru
tion for n =
k for any integer
.
We will use the
orresponden
e between elds and ve
tor spa
es that preserves addition (see Le
ture
Notes on Algebra, Se
tion 6). In parti
ular we will view Fk2 as F2k and Fn2 as F22k . The sets we will
onstru
t will be indexed by 2 F2k , with S dened as follows: S = f(x; x) j x 2 F2k f0gg. We
now verify that the S 's satisfy the above
onditions for t = 2k and d su
h that Vol(d; n) t.
1. S 's are pairwise disjoint: In parti
ular, For every (x; y) 2 F22k , there is at most one su
h that
(x; y) 2 S , namely = xy 1 provided y is non-zero and = 0 if y = 0. (If x = 0 then (x; y) 62 S
for any .)
2. S [ f0g is linear: Clearly ea
h S is a linear subspa
e of F22k and is generated by the matrix [1℄.
Sin
e the
orresponden
e between Fk2 and F2k respe
ts addition, it follows that S [ f0g are linear
over F2 as well.
3. There are
learly t = 2k of the S 's. The
ondition t Vol(d; n) follows from the denition of d.
6-1
4. It is also obvious that jS j = 2k 1.
Taking the ratios k=n and d=n we note that the
odes S always have a rate of 21 . Further if we x any
> 0, and set d = (H 1 ( 21 ) )n then for all suÆ
iently large n we have Vol(d; n) 2n=2 and thus the
family above gives a
ode of rate 12 and relative distan
e approa
hing H 1( 12 ).
By a slightly more
areful argument we
an a
tually verify that most
odes in the family a
hieve the
Gilbert-Varshamov bound. Spe
i
ally, we
an prove:
Theorem 1 For every > 0 and for all suÆ
iently large even numbers n, Wozen
raft's
onstru
tion
with parameter n gives a family of 2n=2
odes with all but fra
tion of whi
h are [n; 21 n; (H 1 ( 21 ) )n℄2 -
odes.
Remarks:
1. Furthermore, for all su
h n, given an index i of a
ode from the family with parameter n, any
spe
i
entry of the generator matrix of the ith
ode
an be
omputed in time polynomial in n.
2. If n is of the form 4 3t , then the
omputation
an be
arried out in O(log n) spa
e. This part
follows from the fa
t that the irredu
ible polynomial for su
h F2k where k = n=2 is known expli
itly
and this polynomial is sparse. (Thanks to Dieter van Melkebeek (dieterias.edu) for pointing out
this use of sparsity.)
Exer
ise: Extend the argument above to
onstru
t for every integer
, every > 0, and all suÆ
iently
large k, an ensemble of 2(
1)k
odes su
h that all but an -fra
tion of the ensemble are [
k; k; (H 1(1
) )(
k )℄2 -
odes. Your
onstru
tion should take time 2
1 O(
k) .
Referen
es: The Wozen
raft ensemble of
odes do not appear in any paper by Wozen
raft. They are
alluded to in a monograph by Massey [3, Se
tion 2.5℄. The a
tual family as des
ribed above is from
Justesen's paper [2℄. The extension asked for in the exer
ise is from the paper of Weldon [4℄.
In the previous se
tion we saw that asymptoti
ally good
odes exist. However, we had no expli
it
onstru
tion for them. The se
ond holy grail of
oding theory is to
onstru
t in polynomial time binary
odes that meet the GV-bound. No one knows how to do this yet. One approa
h to this problem is
to
reate new
odes from existing ones. We look at ve ways of getting new
odes from old
odes.
Four of them don't improve the asymptoti
s of the
ode. The fth leads to
onstru
tions of families of
asymptoti
ally good
odes. (However, they do not meet the GV-bound.)
We re
all a
onstru
tion of Hamming (see notes for Le
ture 3). Given a
ode C = [n; k; d℄2 ,
reate a
new
ode C 0 = [n + 1; k; d0 ℄2 as follows. First en
ode the message using C to get a
odeword
of length
n. Then, add an extra bit whi
h is the parity of the bits of
. This new
odeword,
0 has length n + 1.
Furthermore, as argued in Le
ture 3, if n is odd, the new distan
e d0 = d + 1. Otherwise the distan
e
may remain d.
The parity
he
k bit operation does improve relative distan
e for
odes of odd length but not for
odes
of even length. Furthermore, the rate suers. So we
an not repeat this method to obtain really great
odes.
6-2
2.2 Pun
turing
Given a
ode C = [n; k; d℄q ,
reate a new
ode C 0 = [n t; k; d0 ℄q by simply deleting t
oordinates. The
new distan
e d0 will be d t d0 d. For t = 1 we
an think of the pun
turing operation as a
hieving
the ee
t of the inverse of the parity
he
k bit operation (in a very loose sense).
This operation has the benet of de
reasing the en
oding length thereby improving the rate. But at the
same time it sa
ri
es the minimum distan
e of the
ode and thus de
reases the relative distan
e.
While this operation does not yield a generi
onstru
tion method for good
odes, it turns out to be
very useful in spe
ial
ases. Often the best known
ode for a spe
i
hoi
e of, say n and k, might be a
ode obtained from pun
turing a well-known
ode of longer blo
k length. In su
h
ases, spe
ial features
of the
ode are often used to show that the distan
e is larger than the proven bound. Note further that
all linear
odes are pun
tured Hadamard
odes! So obviously pun
turing
an lead to good
odes. The
question remains: When does it work? and what part of the
odes should be pun
tured?
Given a
ode C = (n; k; d)q over an alphabet ,
reate a new
ode C 0 = (n 1; k0 ; d)q by
hoosing 2
and i 2 [n℄ and retaining only those
odewords
in whi
h the ith
oordinate of the
odeword is . The
ode C 0 is then obtained by deleting the ith
oordinate from all remaining
odewords.
The resulting
ode has blo
k length n. If we pi
k so that it is the most
ommon letter in the
ith
oordinate (among
odewords of C ) then at least qk =q messages will remain in C 0 . Sin
e
odewords
diered in d positions to start with, and the only
odewords that remain agreed in the deleted
oordinate,
the new
odewords are still at Hamming distan
e at least d.
Restri
tion does improve the relative distan
e, but not ne
essarily the rate.
Given a
odes C1 = [n1 ; k1 ; d1 ℄q and C2 = [n2 ; k2 ; d2 ℄q , the dire
t produ
t of C1 and C2 , denoted C1
C2 ,
is an [n1 n2 ; k1 k2 ; d1 d2 ℄q
onstru
ted as follows. View a message of C1
C2 as a k2 by k1 matrix M.
En
ode ea
h row of M by the
ode C1 to obtain an k2 by n1 intermediary matrix. En
ode ea
h
olumn
of this intermediary matrix with the C2
ode to get an n2 by n1 matrix representing the
odeword
en
oding M. This pro
ess works generally - for linear as well as non-linear
odes C1 and C2 . We rst
show that the resulting
ode has distan
e at least d1 d2 in either
ase. Then we show that if C1 and C2
are linear, then the resulting
ode is also linear, and furthermore is the same as the
ode that would be
obtained by en
oding the
olumns with C2 rst and then en
oding the rows with C1 .
We prove this new
ode has distan
e at least d1 d2 . Consider two distin
t message matri
es M1 and M2 .
Let N1 and N2 be the intermediate matri
es obtained after the rst step of the en
oding pro
ess. Let
C1 and C2 be the nal
odewords obtained from these matri
es. Suppose M1 and M2 dier on the ith
row. Then N1 and N2 must dier on at least d1
oordinates on the ith row. In parti
ular they dier on
at least d1
olumns. Say j1 ; : : : ; jd1 are indi
es of d1 su
h
olumns where N1 and N2 dier. Then the
olumn-by-
olumn en
oding results in
odewords C1 and C2 whi
h dier on at least d2
oordinates on
ea
h of these d1
olumns. Thus C1 and C2 dier on at least d1 d2 entries.
Next we show that C1
C2 is linear if C1 and C2 are linear, and the en
oding fun
tions used are linear
fun
tions.
Claim 2 Let R1 2 Fkq 1 n1 generate the
ode C1 and let R2 2 Fkq 2 n2 generate the
ode C2 . Then the
6-3
dire
t produ
t
ode C1
C2 is a linear
ode that has as its
odewords fR2 T MR1 j M 2 Fkq 2 k1 g.
Remark: As a
onsequen
e, we note that it does not matter if we en
ode the rows rst and then the
olumns as above or vi
e versa.
Proof The proof follows easily from the fa
t that the intermediate matrix equals MR1 and thus the
nal matrix equals R2 T (MR1 ). The inter
hangeability follows from asso
iativity of matrix multipli
a-
tion. The linear follows from the fa
t that the matrix R2 T M1 R1 + R2 T M2 R1 is just the en
oding of
M1 + M2 and the matrix R2 T M1 R1 is the en
oding of M1 , where 2 Fq .
Exer
ise: In general the dire
t produ
t of two
odes depends on the
hoi
e of the en
oding fun
tion.
Prove that this is not the
ase for linear
odes. Spe
i
ally, prove that if R1 and R01 generate C1 and
R2 and R02 generate C2 , then fR2 T MR1 j Mg = fR02 T MR01 j Mg.
Again, the dire
t produ
t does not help in the
onstru
tion of asymptoti
ally good
odes. E.g. if we
started with
odes C1 and C2 of rate and relative distan
e 101 , then the resulting
ode is weaker and has
rate and relative distan
e of only 100
1
.
So far all the operations on
odes have been inee
tive in getting to asymptoti
ally good
odes. In
retrospe
t one may say that this is be
ause all these operations xed the alphabet and tried to play
around with the other three parameters. A simply but brilliant idea, due to Forney [1℄, showed how
to extend the game to in
lude the alphabet size in the parameters altered/expoited by the operations
on
odes. This operation is that of \
on
atenating
odes". This method turns out to have profound
impa
t on our ability to
onstru
t asymptoti
ally good binary
odes. We des
ribe this method an its
onsequen
es in the next se
tion.
To motivate the notion of
on
atenation, let us re
all the example using Reed-Solomon
odes on CD
players. Reed-Solomon
odes were dened on large alphabets, while CD players work with the binary
alphabet. However, given an [n; k; d℄2r Reed-Solomon
ode, we interpreted this
ode as an [nr; kr; d℄2
binary
ode by naively representing the alphabet of the RS
ode, elements of F2r , as binary strings of
length r. The main idea of
on
atenation is to fo
us on this \naive interpretation" step and to generalize
it so that elements of F2r
an be represented by binary strings of length larger than r. Note that the
main loss in performan
e is due to the fa
t that in going from strings of length n (over F2r ) to binary
strings of length nr, we did not in
rease the minimum distan
e of the
ode, and so lost in terms of the
relative distan
e. A
areful
hoi
e of the en
oding in the se
ond step ought to be able to moderate this
loss, and this is exa
tly what the method of
on
atenation addresses.
As in the
ase of dire
t produ
t
odes, it is best to explain
on
atenation of
odes in terms of the
en
oding fun
tions. First we dene the l-fold
on
atenation of a single en
oding fun
tion.
Denition 3 For positive integer l, linearity preserving bije
tive map : Fqk ! Fkq and en
oding
fun
tion E : F kq ! Fnq the l-fold
on
atenation of E is the fun
tion l E : F lqk ! F nl
q given by
hx1 ; : : : ; xl i 7! hE ((x1 )); : : : ; E ((xl ))i, where xi 2 Fqk for i 2 [l℄.
Typi
ally the exa
t map : Fqk ! Fkq is irrelevant so we will simply ignore it. Further if l is
lear from
ontext, we will ignore it and simply refer to the map E . We now dene the
on
atenation of two
odes.
6-4
Denition 4 For en
oding fun
tions E1 : Fkqk12 ! Fnq2k1 and E2 : Fkq 2 ! Fnq 2 (and some impli
it bije
tion
: Fqk2 ! Fkq 2 ), the
on
atenation of E1 and E2 is the fun
tion E1 E2 : Fqk1 k2 ! Fnq 1 n2 given by
n1 E2
! Fkqk12 E!1 Fnqk12 ! ! Fqn2 n1 ! Fqn1 n2 :
1
F qk1 k2 F kq 2
In the message hx ; : : : ; xk1 i is mapped to the ve
tor n1 E (E (h (x ); : : : ; (xk1 )i)).
1 2 1
1
1
1
If the en
oding fun
tions E1 ; E2 are linear maps giving linear
odes C1 and C2 respe
tively, then E1 E2
is a linear map whose image is denoted by C1 C2 . It may be veried that C1 C2 is a fun
tion of C1 and
C2 alone and not dependent on E1 ; E2 or . It is
ustomary to
all the
ode C1 the outer
ode and the
ode C2 the inner
ode, and C1 C2 is the
on
atenated
ode.
The next proposition veries the distan
e properties of
on
atenated
odes.
Proposition 5 If C1 is an [n1 ; k1 ; d1 ℄qk2 -
ode and C2 is an [n2 ; k2 ; d2 ℄q -
ode then C1 C2 is an [n1 n2 ; k1 k2 ; d1 d2 ℄q -
ode.
Proof The only part that needs to be veried is the distan
e. To do so
onsider the en
oding of a
non-zero message. The en
oding by E1 leads to an intermediate word from Fnqk12 that in non-zero in d1
oordinates. The n1 -fold
on
atenation of E2 applied to the resulting
odeword produ
es d2 non-zero
symbols in every blo
k where the outer en
oding produ
ed a non-zero symbol. Thus we end up with at
least d1 d2 non-zero symbols in the
on
atenated en
oding.
If we ignore the non-trivial behavior with respe
t to the alphabet size, then the
on
atenation operator
has essentially the same parameters as the dire
t produ
t operator. However the
on
atenation operator
allows the outer
ode to be over a larger alphabet and we have seen that it is easier to
onstru
t good
odes over large alphabets. Thus the
on
atenation operator is stri
tly better than dire
t produ
t. Below
we show an example of non-trivial results it yields.
Example - RS Hadamard: Suppose we
on
atenate an outer
ode that is an [n; k; n k℄n -Reed-
Solomon
ode with a [n; log n; n2 ℄2 -Hadamard
ode. (Assume for this example that n is a power of 2.)
Then the
on
atenated
odes is an [n2 ; k log n; n2 (n k)℄2 -
ode. Depending on our
hoi
e of rate k=n of
the outer
ode, we get a family of binary
odes of
onstant relative distan
e and an inverse polynomial
rate R = k log n
n2 . This is a new range of parameters that we have not seen in the
odes so far.
While it is possible to employ multiple levels of
on
atenation to improve the dependen
e of the blo
k
length n on the message length k making n
loser and
loser to being linear in n, we
an never get an
asymptoti
ally good
ode this way. Informally, to get an asymptoti
ally good family, we need both the
inner
ode and outer
ode to be asymptoti
ally good. In what follows, we will des
ribe two approa
hes
at getting
onstru
tions of asymptoti
ally good
odes using
on
atenation.
The rst family of
odes we des
ribe are due to Forney [1℄, who des
ribed the basi
idea of the
odes,
but did not stress the
hoi
e of parameters that would optimize the tradeo between rate and relative
distan
e. (Forney was after bigger sh, spe
i
ally an algorithmi
version of Shannon's theorem. We
will get to this when we get to algorithms.) The a
tual bounds were worked out by Zyablov [5℄ and are
usually referred to as the Zyablov bounds.
The idea to get a polynomial time
onstru
tible family of asymptoti
ally good
odes is a simple one.
As an outer
ode we will use a Reed-Solomon
ode over an n-ary alphabet, say an [n; k; n k℄n -
ode.
6-5
For the inner
ode, we will sear
h for the best linear
ode in, say, Wozen
raft's ensemble of
odes. This
takes exponential time in the blo
k length of the inner
ode, but the blo
k length of the inner
ode only
needs to be linear in the message length and the message length of the inner
ode is only log n. Thus
the time it takes to nd the best
ode in Wozen
raft's ensemble is only polynomial in n.
Getting a little more spe
i
, to
onstru
t a
ode of relatve distan
e Æ, we pi
k Æ1 and Æ2 so that Æ1 Æ2 = Æ.
For the outer
ode we pi
k an [n; (1 Æ1 )n; Æ1 n℄n -RS-
ode. For the inner
ode we sear
h Wozen
raft's
ensemble to obtain an [n0 ; (1 H (Æ2 ))n0 ; Æ2 n0 ℄2 -
ode with (1 H (Æ2 ))n0 = log n. The resulting
ode has
blo
k length nn0 = O(n log n), relative distan
e Æ and rate (1 Æ1 )(1 H (Æ2 )). Thus we obtain the
following theorem:
Theorem 6 For every Æ 2 (0; 21 ), there exists an innite family of polynomial time
onstru
tible
odes
C with rate R and relative distan
e Æ satisfying
Æ
R max 1 (1 H (Æ2 )) 1 : (1)
ÆÆ2 < 2 Æ2
We take a brief digression to dis
uss what it means to
onstru
t a
ode expli
itly. It is
lear that
this ought to be a
omplexity-theoreti
denition, sin
e a
ode is a nite set and one
an obviously
enumerate all nite sets to see if one of them gives, say, an (n; k; d)-
ode. The
onstru
tions of Gilbert
took exponential time, while Varshamov's is a randomized polynomial time
onstru
tion that possibly
returns an erroneous solution (to the task of nding an [n; k; d℄
ode). We asserted that Forney's
onstru
tion is somehow expli
it, and yet this is not satisfa
tory to many mathemati
ians. Here we
enumerate some
riteria for expli
it
onstru
tions for the
ase of
odes (though similar
riteria apply to
onstru
tions of all
ombinatorial obje
ts).
Let fCR;Æ g(R;Æ) be a
olle
tion of families of
odes, where the family CR;Æ has rate R and relative distan
e
Æ. The following are possible notions of C being expli
itly
onstru
tible:
Polytime For every 0 < R < 1 and 0 < Æ < 1, there exists a polynomial p su
h that generator matrix
of the ith element of the family CR;Æ , with blo
k length ni , is
onstru
tible in time p(ni ), if su
h a
family exists.
Uniform polytime There exists a polynomial p su
h that for every 0 < R < 1 and 0 < Æ < 1, generator
matrix of the ith element of the family CR;Æ , with blo
k length ni , is
onstru
tible in time p(ni ),
if su
h a family exists.
The dieren
e between polytime
onstru
tibility and uniform polytime
onstru
tibility is relatively
small. This distin
tion
an be made in the remaining denitions too, but we will skip the extra
quantiers, and simply fo
us on what makes a
ode C
onstru
tible (leaving it to the reader to nd
a preferen
e within uniform and nonuniform time bounds).
Logspa
e The generator matrix of the ith member of C is
onstru
tible in logarithmi
spa
e. (This
implies that C is polynomial time
onstru
tible.)
Lo
ally Polytime Constru
tible 1 Here we will require that a spe
i
entry, say the j; lth entry, of
the generator matrix of the ith member of the
ode C be
omputable in time polynomial in the
1 A
tually, this notion does not have a name and I had to generate one on the
y. Thanks to Anna Lysyanskaya for
suggesting this name.
6-6
size of the binary representation of i; j; l. (Note this representation has size logarithmi
in n and
so this notion is mu
h more expli
it than earlier notions.)
Lo
ally Logspa
e Constru
tible The j; lth entry of the generator matrix of the ith
ode is logspa
e
onstru
tible in the length of the binary representations of i; j and l.
As noted, the requirements get more stringent as we go down the list above. The notion of Lo
ally
Logspa
e Constru
tible is about as strong a requirement we
an pose without getting involved with
ma
hine-dependent problems. (What operations are allowed? Why? et
.)
Forney's
odes, as des
ribed above, are polytime
onstru
tible, but not uniform polytime or logspa
e
onstru
tible. The next family of
odes we will des
ribe are lo
ally logspa
e
onstru
tible, making them
as expli
it as we
ould desire (dene?).
The prin
ipal barrier we seem to fa
e in produ
ing
odes expli
itly is that we know how to
onstru
t
smaller and smaller ensembles of good
odes, but we don't know how to get our hands on any parti
ular
good one. In fa
t in the ensembles we
onstru
t almost all
odes are good. Is there any way to use
this fa
t? Justesen's idea [2℄ is a brilliant one | one that \derandomizers" should take note of: On
the one hand we
an produ
e a small sample spa
e of mostly good
odes. On the other hand we need
one good
ode that we wish to use repeatedly | n1 times in the
on
atenation. Do we really need to
use the same
ode n1 times? Do they all have to be good? The answer, to both questions, is NO! And
so, surprisingly enough, the ensemble of
odes is exa
tly what suÆ
es for the
onstru
tion. Spe
i
ally,
we take an [n1 ; k1 ; d1 ℄qk2 -outer
ode with en
oding fun
tion E1 and an ensemble
onsisting of n1 inner
odes with the ith member denoted E2(i) . We en
ode a message m by rst applying the outer en
oding
fun
tion to get E1 (m) and then applying the ith inner en
oding fun
tion to the ith
oordinate of E1 (m),
getting the ve
tor hE2(1) ((E1 (m))1 ); : : : ; E2(n1 ) ((E1 (m))n1 )i.
The above denition
an be formalized to get a notion of
on
atenating an [n1 ; k1 ; ℄qk2 -outer
ode
with an ensemble
ontaining n1 [n2 ; k2 ; ℄q -inner
odes ( representing the fa
t that the distan
es are
unknown, or possibly not all the same). Denoting the outer
ode by C1 , and the inner ensemble by C2 ,
we extend the notation for
on
atenation and use C1 C2 to denote su
h
on
atenations. The following
proposition shows how the parameters of the
on
atenated
odes relate to those of the outer
ode and
inner ensemble.
Proposition 7 Let C1 be an [n1 ; k1 ; d1 ℄qk2
ode. Let C2 be an ensemble of n1 [n2 ; k2 ; ℄q -
odes of whi
h
all but -fra
tion have minimum distan
e d2 . Then the
on
atenated
ode C1 C2 is an [n1 n2 ; k1 k2 ; (d1
n1 )d2 ℄q
ode.
Proof The proof follows from the fa
t that the rst level en
oding of a non-zero message leaves at
least d1
oordinates that are non-zero. At most n1 of the inner
odes do not have minimum distan
e
d2 . Thus at least d1 n1
oordinates, when en
oded by C2 result in d2 non-zero zymbols ea
h. The
distan
e follows.
Note that it is not entirely trivial to nd an ensemble with just the right parameters: To use every
element of the ensemble at least on
e, we need the inner ensemble size to be no larger than the outer
blo
k length. To use an RS
ode at the outer level, we need the outer blo
k length to be no larger
than the outer alphabet size. To use
on
atenation, we need the number of outer alphabet size to be
no larger than the number of inner
odewords. Putting it all together, we need an ensemble with no
6-7
more members than
odewords per member of the ensemble. Fortunately enough, this is exa
tly what
is a
hieved by Wozen
raft's ensemble, so we
an use it. Consequenntly we get one fully expli
it (lo
ally
logspa
e
onstru
tible) family of error-
orre
ting
odes on the Zyablov bound. In parti
ular the
ode is
asymptoti
ally good.
Theorem 8 For every 0 < Æ < H 1 ( 21 ), there exists a lo
ally
logspa
e
onstru
tible innite family of
odes C that has relative distan
e Æ and rate 2 1 H 1 ( 1 ) .
1 Æ
2
The
ode above is obtained by
on
atenating a Reed-Solomon
ode of appropriate rate with the Wozen-
raft ensemble. We note that to get lo
al logspa
e
onstru
tibility, we need the inner
ode length to be
4 3l for some integer l so that we
an use the expli
it
onstru
tion of elds of size 2 3l .
Referen es
[1℄ G. David Forney. Generalized Minimum Distan
e de
oding. IEEE Transa
tions on Information
Theory, 12:125{131, 1966.
[2℄ Jrn Justesen. A
lass of
onstru
tive asymptoti
ally good algebrai
odes. IEEE Transa
tions on
Information Theory, 18:652{656, 1972.
[3℄ James L. Massey. Threshold de
oding. MIT Press, Cambridge, Massa
husetts, USA, 1963.
[4℄ Edward J. Weldon, Jr. Justesen's
onstru
tion | the low-rate
ase. IEEE Transa
tions on Infor-
mation Theory, 19:711{713, 1973.
[5℄ Vi
tor V. Zyablov. An estimate on the
omplexity of
onstru
ting binary linear
as
ade
odes.
Problems of Information Transmission, 7(1):3{10, 1971.
6-8