User talk:Itusg15q4user
Classical block codes are usually implemented using hard-decision algorithms...[edit]
Look at the classical block codes... they are designed based combinatorics and polynomial interpolation over Galois fields mostly. Their decoding algorithms are naturally hard-decision because they require precise values for computation. Soft-decision block decoding requires an iterated approach, and this is only recently done to improve the performance such as of RS codes. What is the doubt that you have? Nageh (talk) 13:20, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
Of course this is not really true... you could do soft decoding without iterations, and you could use Viterbi-like decoding. However, this is not typically done because of its complexity. Nageh (talk) 13:37, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
More about this... the traditional notion of error-correction capability is that a code with Hamming distance d can correct up to d/2 errors. However, other than for perfect codes, the channel capacity allows for much better error recovery, and this is enabled particularly through soft decoding, but this is pursued only recently again, starting with the turbo and LDPC codes. Again, if you think may claim is so dubious, than please justify yourself the addition of your fact? template. Nageh (talk) 13:55, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
Nomination of ABI Research for deletion[edit]
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article ABI Research is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ABI Research until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. MelanieN (talk) 00:42, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:02, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:03, 24 November 2015 (UTC)