Timeline for Error-correcting rate is misleading
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
10 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mar 25, 2012 at 14:48 | history | edited | Kaveh |
edited tags
|
|
| Mar 24, 2012 at 20:14 | answer | added | Peter Shor | timeline score: 7 | |
| Mar 24, 2012 at 18:12 | comment | added | Ran G. | @Raphael I think you are right, current digital-communication channels DO work with larger symbols, but not more than, say, 256-bit per symbol (which is quite rare for wireless, but may be common for cables). But the symbol-size is limited to very small sizes, and cannot (practically) grow at will. | |
| Mar 24, 2012 at 16:37 | comment | added | Raphael | @M.Alaggan: I'm no expert on this; I figure if you can encode 0/1 on a wave carrier, you can encode many more symbols, too, transmitting more information by time interval. It would surprise me if modern technology would not do this (think code-multiplexing) but I can not name a concrete example. | |
| Mar 24, 2012 at 16:23 | comment | added | Mohammad Alaggan | @Raphael It would help if you could justify your point with a few practical examples of real-life technologies handling non-binary symbols and post that as an answer. | |
| Mar 24, 2012 at 12:54 | history | tweeted | twitter.com/#!/StackCompSci/status/183537216478384129 | ||
| Mar 24, 2012 at 12:19 | comment | added | Raphael | Why would you restrict yourself to binary codes if your transmission medium/technology can handle many more? | |
| Mar 24, 2012 at 12:18 | history | edited | Raphael | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
deleted 5 characters in body
|
| Mar 24, 2012 at 3:59 | history | edited | Dave Clarke | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
edited title
|
| Mar 24, 2012 at 3:54 | history | asked | Ran G. | CC BY-SA 3.0 |