sh1ftst0rm
Reputation
355
Top tag
Next privilege 500 Rep.
Access review queues
 Jul 16 comment Brain teaser solution in Graph Theory / Ramsey Theory Absolutely, I will update my post tonight to link to this answer! Jul 16 comment Brain teaser solution in Graph Theory / Ramsey Theory @dtldarek Thanks, that's a great answer! For those interested, I worked through this in a lot more (painstaking!) detail here: boldlyforward.wordpress.com/2015/07/16/… Jul 16 comment Brain teaser solution in Graph Theory / Ramsey Theory @john I'm not sure what you think I'm looking for, but I would actually prefer that you use your brain to answer. I don't care, and didn't specify, what type of proof you use, the point is just that coming up with a way to test the batteries isn't sufficient, you also need to prove that you can't do it in fewer trials. So if you can "easily" do it, I'd love to see it in an answer. Jul 15 comment Brain teaser solution in Graph Theory / Ramsey Theory Very helpful answer, but I agree with Greg, I'm not seeing the final conclusive step to the proof, and it doesn't even require a tie. Imagine for instance you have four vertices connected in a ring. They each have degree two, so we color them black. The remaining four are connected as two disjoint pairs, so each has a degree one, and is colored white. But each white connects to another white, so this configuration of six edges works. Of course, that doesn't prove that you can guarantee finding a match with six tries as required by the riddle, but I don't think this answer has proven you can't. Jul 15 comment Brain teaser solution in Graph Theory / Ramsey Theory @Sisi Good catch, thanks! Jun 3 comment Name of the highest power of 2 smaller than or equal to a given number Order of magnitude is spot on, but you do need to be clear that's is base-two, because almost evey body will interpret it as base 10. Apr 30 comment Constructor theory distinguishability Seems like a reasonable idea. I haven't gone back to validate your proof, but it appears sound. Thanks! Feb 24 comment Big-O complexity of iterating over every substring @Tryss: Thanks, would you be able to explain this a little? In fact, I actually need to add a third nested loop, which iterates j/2 times, so I'm not sure how to extrapolate from your answer to a more general solution. Mar 1 comment Understanding group presentation as a quotient Wow, nice answer, thanks for putting in the time! I'm going to have to put in some time studying it some more to understand it, but I think I was able to follow each step, just haven't quite pulled it all together into a conclusion yet. Also, I think there's a typo in the last paragraph: you have $fef$ listed twice in $\hat{G}$. Feb 26 comment Show that group action is homomorphism to Symmetric group Oh, ok. So my original formulation for the condition of homomorphism was off. I think it makes sense now, thanks! Feb 26 comment Show that group action is homomorphism to Symmetric group Actually, I take that back, $A_g(x)$ is not a permutation of $X$, it's an element of $X$. So how can you compose a permutation/function, $A_g$ with an element of a set, $A_f(x)$? Feb 26 comment Show that group action is homomorphism to Symmetric group @SpamIAm: Thanks, but I think you over estimate me. I have the axioms written out as $A(e,x) = x$ for all $x$ (where $e$ is the identity of $G$) and $A(g, A(f,x)) = A(g+f, x)$, but it's still not clear to me why this defined a homomorphism. Feb 26 comment Show that group action is homomorphism to Symmetric group (Thanks for updating from $h$ to $A$). So the steps to change right side, $A(g+f,x)$ into $A_g * A_f(x)$ are clear, but is that necessarily equal to $A_g(x) * A_f(x)$. I know $A_g(x)$ and $A_g$ are both permutations of X, but are they they same? Feb 26 comment Show that group action is homomorphism to Symmetric group @ThomasAndrews: Thanks, I've updated the question to use $A$ in place of $h$: I'm not sure why I started using $h$, must be misread something somewhere. So if $A$ is the group action, we have $A : G \times X \to X$, to it $A$ takes a two-tuple $(g,x)$ with $g \in G$ and $x \in X$. Feb 21 comment Notation for nested sigmas (summations) Oh, that's right, I forgot you can iterate over a set of tuples. But it doesn't really resolve the question of how to neatly define the set from which they draw, which is kind of the big problem in the originally posted example. Feb 19 comment Enumerating cases for conditional probability Thanks. That's nearly what I came up with as described in the question, but it is not any more clear to me why you don't need $\binom{8}{4}$ included somewhere as this is the total number of ways in which you can choose which four bits are set and which four are cleared. Sep 11 comment Name for the sense of how many items are present Perfect, thanks! Jul 31 comment Non-binary Hamming codes? Thanks for all the info, it was sufficient for me to realize that I did not have as good of an understanding of the topic as I thought. "SEC" is "single error correcting", i.e., distance-3. Jul 31 comment Variations of the Hamming code. I think it's worth mentioning/emphasizing that simply cutting off the first $s$ bits of the codeword only works for canonical Hamming codes (i.e., where the generator matrix begins with the identity matrix). In that case, any data word beginning with $s$ zeroes is guaranteed to produce a codeword which also begins with $s$ zeroes. But for non-canonical Hamming codes, this is not necessarily the case. Non-canonical codes can still be shortened, but it is somewhat more complicated. Jul 31 comment Non-binary Hamming codes? Rats, looks like I have more learning to do =). When you say it wouldn't be a Hamming code over the larger-base field, do you mean it doesn't function as SEC, or just that it is not strictly a Hamming code (for instance, because it is not a perfect code)? Because I've tested it pretty thorougly and it seems to function well as SEC. But based on your $[13, 10, 3]$ code, it looks like I'm nowhere near optimal data rate.