$$ \newcommand{\Gr}{\mathscr{G}} \newcommand{\Ri}{\mathscr{R}} \newcommand{\Z}{\mathbb{Z}} \newcommand{\Q}{\mathbb{Q}} \newcommand{\R}{\mathbb{R}} \newcommand{\N}{\mathbb{N}} \newcommand{\F}{\mathbb{F}} \newcommand{\C}{\mathcal{C}} \newcommand{\div}{\,\vert\,} \newcommand{\ndiv}{\,\not\vert\,} \newcommand{\neq}{\not=} \newcommand{\b}{\textbf} \newcommand{\bmat}[1]{\begin{bmatrix}#1\end{bmatrix}} \newcommand{\barr}[2]{\left[\begin{array}{#1}#2\end{array}\right]} $$ # Motivation [#] TODO # Basics ## Codes We wish to send some message $m$ from a source, over a channel, and receive it at some recipient. To do this we encode it, creating a new message $c$ (we often use $x$ instead). This message hopefully is of such a character that it allows us to succesfully decode $m$ at the recipient. Before we go about constructing an encoding scheme, we make a few definitions: >**Definition.** A **code** $\C$ is a set of **codewords**, each a tuple of some length $n$; $(a_1, a_2\ldots a_n)$. A code $\C$ is said to be an $(n, M)$ code, if each code is of length $n$ and the number of codewords in $\C$ is $M$. Put in other words, we say that a code describes a set of possible encodings of inputs (messages). Typically, the codewords are $n$-tuples over some field $\F_q$. If the field is $\F_2$ we call the code a **binary code**. If the field is $\F_3$ we call the code a **ternary code**. We often write a codeword $(a_1, a_2, a_3 \dots)$ in a concatenated form $a_1a_2a_3\dots$. In the most general of terms, this is all the structure necessary required to define codes. However, we almost exclusively work with *linear* codes: >**Definition.** A **linear code** is a code where all linear manipulations of one or more codewords result in a new codeword, i.e. for all $\b x, \b y \in \C$: > (i) $ax \in C,\> a \in \F$ > (ii) $x + y \in C$. **Example.** Let $\C = \{000, 110, 011, 101, 111\}$ be a code over $\F_2$. It is a linear code as can be easily verified. ## Generator matrices We typically convert a message $x$ into a codeword $c$ through the means of a **generator matrix**. Such a matrix also imposes a (so far undefined, but definitely necessary) length requirement on the messages: **Definition.** A **generator matrix** $G$ of a code $\C$ is any matrix of dimension $n \times k$, where $n$ is the length of each codeword, and $k$ is the length of each message, whose rows form a basis for $\C$. Equivalently, we can say that the rows of $G$ must span $\C$.

We can calculate the entirity of $\C$ by combining the rows of $G$ in arbitrary fashion: $$ \C = \{0000, 1101, 1010, 0011, 1110, 0111, 1001, 0100\} $$ We note to no surprise that the amount of distinct codewords in $\C$ is the same as the amount of possible inputs: $2^3 = 8$. >**Definition.** A generator matrix is said to be in **standard** form if it is on the form $[I_k \mid A]$. **Example.** The matrix $$\barr{cc|cc}{ 1 & 0 & 1 & 1 \\ 0 & 1 & 0 & 1}$$ is on standard form. The matrix $$\barr{cc|cc}{1 & 0 & 1 & 1 \\ 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 \\ 1 & 0 & 1 & 1}$$ is not. ## Parity check matrices An interesting property of a linear code is that as it is a subspace of some vector space (in particular, of the subspace $F_q^n$), it is the *kernel* of some linear transformation $H$. For each codeword $x \in \C$, $Hc^T = \b 0$. So why is this of any importance to us? Looking back at our motivation for defining error-correcting codes, it is precisely that of detecting errors. As $H$ (the construction of which we haven't touched on yet) multiplied by any codeword will yield $\b 0$, we know that if a received message of some code does not yield $\b 0$ on multiplication with $H$, then some error has occured. In fact, if our code is cleverly constructed, we can also figure out which error has occured, if the amount of errors are not too large. **Definition.** The **Parity-check matrix** $H$ of a code $C$ is a $(n-k) \times n$ matrix, defined by $H\b x^T = \b 0,\> \forall x \in \C$. If we have a generator matrix on standard form, we have a nice way of figuring out $H$: **Theorem.** If $G = [I_k \mid A]$ then $H = [-A^T \mid I_{n-k}]$. *Proof.* Clearly $HG^T = [-A^T \mid I_{n-k}]\cdot [I_k \mid A]^T =-A^T + A^T = \mathcal{O}$. **Example.** Let $$G = \barr{ccc|cc}{ 1 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 1 \\ 0 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 1 \\ 0 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 0 }$$ be the generator matrix of some code $\C$ over $F_2$. Then $\C$ has parity check matrix (note that $-1 = 1 \mod 2$) $$H = \barr{ccc|cc}{ 1 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 0 \\ 1 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 1 }$$ Finally we note (without proof) that the rows of $H$ is also necessarily independent. ## Dual codes **Definition.** Let $G$ be the generator matrix of some code $\C$ with parity check matrix $H$. Then the code defined by the rows of $H$ is called the dual code of $G$, and is denoted $G^{\perp}$. A code is said to be **self-orthagonal** if $G \subseteq G^{\perp}$, and **self-dual** if $G = G^{\perp}$. ## Weights and distances One interesting property of codes is that of *weight* and *distance*. >**Definition.** The (Hamming) **distance** $d(x, y)$ between two codewords $\b x and \b y$ of some code $\C$ is defined as the number of coordinates in which $\b x$ and $\b y$ differ. $$ $$ >**Definition.** The (Hamming) **weight** $wt(x, y)$of a codeword $\b x$ is defined as the number of non-zero coordinates of $\b x$. We make the following observation: >**Theorem.** If $x, y \in \F_q^n$ then $d(x, y) = wt(x - y)$. *Proof.* Should be fairly clear: simply observe that $x-y$ is zero in all coordinates where $x$ and $y$ are similar. >**Definition.** The **minimum distance** of a code $\C$ is the minumum distance between any two codewords of $\C$. $$ $$ >**Theorem.** If $\C$ is a linear code, then the minimum distance of $\C$ is the same as the minimum weight of the non-zero codewords of $\C$. ## Puncturing and extending codes ## Equivalence of codes ## Examples # Some codes ## Binary repetition code ## Hamming codes ## Reed-Muller codes ## Golay codes # Bounds on codes ## $A_q(n,d)$ and $B_q(n, d)$ ## MDS codes ## Gilbert Lower Bound ## Exampels # Cyclic codes