Fact-checked by Grok 2 weeks ago

Hamming code

A Hamming code is a family of linear error-correcting codes capable of detecting up to two errors or correcting a single error in a block of digital data transmitted or stored over noisy channels. Invented by American mathematician in 1950 at , it emerged from frustrations with frequent errors in early computing equipment, particularly unreliable punched cards and vacuum tubes that caused machines to halt operations repeatedly. The foundational Hamming code operates on by appending bits to the original message bits in specific positions (typically powers of 2), enabling systematic through checks that identify the exact position of a single flipped bit. For instance, the canonical (7,4) Hamming code encodes 4 data bits into a 7-bit codeword using 3 bits, achieving a minimum of 3, which guarantees single-error correction; the calculated from checks directly points to the erroneous bit's location if one exists. This construction generalizes to longer codes, such as the (2^m - 1, 2^m - 1 - m) Hamming code for m bits, and extends to non-binary fields over finite fields. Beyond its binary form, Hamming codes have inspired numerous extensions, including the extended Hamming code (e.g., (8,4) with an overall for double-error detection) and shortened variants used in practical systems; these maintain the core principle of perfect single-error correction while adapting to specific constraints like code length or alphabet size. Historically, the codes addressed immediate needs in computing but proved foundational to , influencing subsequent developments like BCH and Reed-Solomon codes. Hamming codes find widespread applications in reliable data storage and transmission, notably in error-correcting code (ECC) memory for servers and high-reliability computers, where they mitigate soft errors from cosmic rays or electrical noise by correcting single-bit flips in RAM. They also appear in telecommunications for satellite and deep-space communications, in flash memory, and in RAID systems (such as RAID 2) to enhance data integrity without excessive overhead. Their efficiency—requiring only logarithmic redundancy for error correction—has ensured enduring relevance in digital systems demanding fault tolerance.

Background and History

Early Error-Correcting Codes

Early error-correcting techniques relied on simple redundancy to detect or correct transmission errors in noisy channels, such as those found in telegraphic and early computing systems. Parity bits emerged as a basic method for single-error detection, where an additional bit is appended to a block of data to ensure the total number of 1s is even (even parity) or odd (odd parity). Upon reception, the parity is recalculated; a mismatch indicates an odd number of errors, typically a single bit flip, allowing detection but not correction. This approach was particularly useful in the unreliable vacuum-tube computers of the 1940s, where tube failures could corrupt data during processing or memory storage. Another foundational technique was the , employed in early systems by starting in the 1930s for numeric data representation. In this constant-weight code, each digit from 0 to 9 is encoded using five bits with exactly two 1s, ensuring a fixed of two. Any single-bit error alters this weight to one or three, enabling detection without correction. This method improved reliability in mechanical readers and sorters, where physical damage or misreads were common, by providing built-in validation during data entry and processing. Repetition codes offered a straightforward way to achieve error correction by transmitting each data bit multiple times—typically three or more—and decoding via majority voting at the receiver. For instance, sending "101" for bit 1 and "000" for bit 0 allows correction of a single error per group by selecting the most frequent value. This technique was applied in early radio transmissions around the , where atmospheric noise frequently garbled signals, requiring operators to repeat messages for verification. While effective for short messages in low-bandwidth channels like , repetition codes suffered from severe efficiency limitations for large data volumes, as the redundancy overhead grew linearly, reducing effective throughput. These pre-Hamming methods highlighted the need for more efficient error control in computing, motivating innovations that balanced redundancy with performance.

Invention and Development

In 1950, Richard W. Hamming, a mathematician at Bell Laboratories, developed the foundational concepts of what would become known as Hamming codes, motivated by the frequent failures of early computing equipment plagued by noise and unreliable components in vacuum-tube based systems. These interruptions, often requiring manual restarts and loss of computational progress, prompted Hamming to seek automated methods for detecting and correcting errors, building briefly on prior simple techniques like parity bits and repetition codes for error detection. His work addressed the practical needs of large-scale computing machines at Bell Labs, where errors from environmental noise or hardware glitches were commonplace. A key catalyst was an incident in late 1947, when Hamming set up calculations on the Bell Model V relay computer before a weekend but returned to find errors from faulty punched cards and relays, inspiring his pursuit of self-correcting systems. Hamming formalized the invention of single--correcting () codes in 1950, introducing a systematic approach that could correct a single bit while detecting double errors in or . This breakthrough was detailed in his seminal paper, "Error Detecting and Error Correcting Codes," published in April 1950 in The Bell System Technical Journal. The paper presented the core principles of these linear , emphasizing their efficiency in achieving the theoretical limits for correction in noisy channels, and marked a significant advancement over earlier error-detection-only methods. Early implementations of Hamming codes were integrated into Bell Laboratories' computing infrastructure, notably on the Bell Model V, an electromechanical relay-based machine used for numerical computations, where the codes helped mitigate errors from punched-card inputs and mechanical failures. This application demonstrated the codes' practicality in real-world systems and influenced the broader adoption of error-correcting techniques in subsequent commercial computers.

Fundamentals of Hamming Codes

Linear Block Code Properties

A linear block code over GF(2) is defined as a k-dimensional subspace of the n-dimensional vector space \mathbb{F}_2^n, characterized by the parameters [n, k, d], where n is the code length, k is the dimension (and thus the number of information bits is k), and d is the minimum Hamming distance between any two distinct nonzero codewords. This structure ensures that the code is closed under addition and scalar multiplication modulo 2, forming a linear code suitable for error correction in binary channels. Hamming codes constitute a specific family of these linear block codes that are perfect single-error-correcting codes, achieving equality in the for t=1. The , or sphere-packing bound, provides an upper limit on the size M=2^k of a code capable of correcting t errors: M \leq \frac{2^n}{\sum_{i=0}^t \binom{n}{i}}. For t=1, this reduces to M \leq 2^n / (1 + n), and Hamming codes saturate this bound, packing the space without gaps or overlaps in the spheres of radius 1 around codewords. With a minimum d=3, Hamming codes can correct any single-bit and simultaneously detect up to two-bit errors, as the distance allows distinguishing single-error patterns from no-error or double-error cases. These codes admit a systematic , wherein each codeword explicitly contains the k bits followed by m bits computed to satisfy the code constraints. The parameters of binary Hamming codes are given by n = 2^m - 1 and k = n - m, where m \geq 2 denotes the number of parity-check bits required to achieve the error-correcting capability.

Parity-Check and Generator Matrices

The parity-check matrix H for a Hamming code is an m \times n matrix over \mathrm{GF}(2), where n = 2^m - 1 and the columns consist of all distinct nonzero vectors of length m. This construction lists the $2^m - 1 nonzero elements of \mathrm{GF}(2)^m as columns, ensuring each is unique. Typically, the columns are arranged in systematic order corresponding to the representations of the integers from 1 to $2^m - 1; for instance, with m = 3, the columns are the forms of 1 through 7, yielding: H = \begin{pmatrix} 0 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 \\ 0 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 1 \\ 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 \end{pmatrix}. The distinct columns guarantee a minimum distance of d = 3, enabling the code to correct any single error. The generator matrix G for the Hamming code is a k \times n matrix in systematic form, where k = n - m = 2^m - m - 1, expressed as G = [I_k \mid P]. Here, I_k is the k \times k identity matrix, and the parity submatrix P (of size k \times m) is derived such that H G^T = 0, ensuring all codewords lie in the null space of H. To obtain P, the columns of H are rearranged so that the last m columns form the identity matrix I_m, and then P is set to the transpose of the m \times k submatrix formed by the first k columns of the rearranged H. This systematic structure allows the information bits to directly appear in the first k positions of the codeword. A key property of this matrix construction is that the syndrome s = H e for an error e with a single 1 in j equals the j-th column of H. Since all columns are distinct and nonzero, s uniquely identifies the error j, facilitating syndrome-based decoding for single- correction.

Encoding and Decoding Procedures

Encoding Algorithms

Hamming codes employ systematic encoding, in which the k information bits are directly placed in the initial k of the n-bit codeword, while the remaining m bits are computed to ensure the codeword satisfies the -check equations defined by the -check H, specifically by solving H c^T = 0 where c denotes the codeword . The step-by-step encoding algorithm for a given k-bit message u proceeds as follows: form the partial codeword by appending zero placeholders for the m bits to u, yielding a tentative n-bit ; then compute the bits p by performing checks over the appropriate positions (including the placeholders themselves initially set to zero), and insert these values into the designated positions to achieve even across each check group, thereby satisfying all conditions. Alternatively, this can be expressed using the G = [I_k | P], where I_k is the k × k and P is the k × m submatrix, such that the full codeword c = [u | u P]. Non-systematic encoding is also possible through direct matrix multiplication: the codeword c is obtained by computing the row vector u multiplied by the full n × k generator matrix G, resulting in c = u G, which generates all valid codewords spanning the code space. In binary Hamming codes, parity bits are conventionally positioned at indices that are powers of 2 (, etc.), with each parity bit responsible for checking a unique set of positions determined by the binary representation of the indices; for instance, the parity bit at position 1 ( 001) covers all odd-numbered positions (1, 3, 5, 7, ...), the bit at position 2 ( 010) covers positions where the second bit is set (2, 3, 6, 7, 10, 11, ...), and the bit at position 4 ( 100) covers positions where the third bit is set (4, 5, 6, 7, 12, 13, 14, 15, ...), with each parity bit set to the XOR of the bits in its covered positions to enforce even . The parity-check matrix H and generator matrix G together define the structure of the Hamming code and facilitate both systematic and non-systematic encoding approaches.

Error Detection and Correction via Syndromes

In syndrome decoding for Hamming codes, the received vector \mathbf{r} = \mathbf{c} + \mathbf{e} is processed, where \mathbf{c} is the transmitted codeword and \mathbf{e} is the error vector, typically with a single nonzero entry for correctable errors. The \mathbf{s} = H \mathbf{r}^T is computed using the parity-check matrix H, which requires multiplying the m \times n by the n \times 1 received vector, resulting in an m-bit . If \mathbf{s} = \mathbf{0}, the received vector is deemed error-free, as valid codewords satisfy H \mathbf{c}^T = \mathbf{0}. When \mathbf{s} \neq \mathbf{0}, it is compared to the columns of H, which are distinct nonzero vectors designed to uniquely identify positions. If \mathbf{s} equals the j-th column \mathbf{h}_j, a single is assumed in the j-th position of \mathbf{r}. The correction involves flipping the j-th bit of \mathbf{r} to obtain the estimated codeword \hat{\mathbf{c}}, from which the information bits are extracted using the systematic form or . This process ensures single- correction with high reliability in channels prone to isolated bit flips. For multiple errors, such as doubles, the syndrome \mathbf{s} will be nonzero but may not match any single column of H, signaling a detected yet uncorrectable . In such cases, the flags the received as erroneous without attempting correction, preventing of undetected faults, though this detection capability varies by the specific Hamming code variant and . The overall decoding is linear in the code length, O(n), making it highly efficient for hardware implementations like controllers and communications.

Binary Hamming Code Examples

The [7,4] Hamming Code Construction

The [7,4] Hamming code serves as the foundational binary example of a Hamming code with parity-check matrix dimension m=3, yielding length n=7 and dimension k=4. The parity-check matrix H is the 3×7 matrix over GF(2) whose columns consist of all distinct nonzero 3-bit binary vectors, arranged to correspond to the binary representations of the position indices 1 through 7 (with the least significant bit in the first row). H = \begin{pmatrix} 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 \\ 0 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 1 \\ 0 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 \end{pmatrix} For instance, the first column is \begin{pmatrix} 1 \\ 0 \\ 0 \end{pmatrix} ( 001 for 1), and the third column is \begin{pmatrix} 1 \\ 1 \\ 0 \end{pmatrix} ( 011 for 3). The corresponding G is the 4×7 systematic matrix that generates all codewords as linear combinations of its rows, ensuring H G^T = 0. G = \begin{pmatrix} 1 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 \\ 1 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 0 \\ 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 \\ 1 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 1 \end{pmatrix} This form places the 4 bits in positions 3, 5, 6, and 7, with bits in positions 1, 2, and 4 computed to satisfy the parity-check equations defined by . To encode a , insert the 4-bit vector u = (u_1, u_2, u_3, u_4) into positions 3, 5, 6, and 7 of the codeword, then compute the parity bits in positions 1, 2, and 4 as the even- checks over the relevant positions (including the parity bit itself) based on the rows of . For the 1011 (u_1=1 in position 3, u_2=0 in position 5, u_3=1 in position 6, u_4=1 in position 7), the parity calculations are:
  • Position 1 (first row of ): XOR of positions 1, 3, 5, 7 = 1 ⊕ 0 ⊕ 1 = 0 (so parity bit = 0 to make even).
  • Position 2 (second row of ): XOR of positions 2, 3, 6, 7 = 1 ⊕ 1 ⊕ 1 = 1 (so parity bit = 1 to make even).
  • Position 4 (third row of ): XOR of positions 4, 5, 6, 7 = 0 ⊕ 1 ⊕ 1 = 0 (so parity bit = 0 to make even).
The resulting codeword is 0110011. For decoding, compute the syndrome s = r^T (where r is the received 7-bit ); if s = 0, no is detected, and the codeword is accepted. If s ≠ 0, the nonzero matches one column of , indicating the position j (interpreting s as the j with LSB in the first component). Flip the bit in position j to correct the single , then extract the message from positions 3, 5, 6, and 7. Consider the received 0100011 (a single in position 3 of the codeword 0110011). The is s = H r^T = \begin{pmatrix} 0 \oplus 0 \oplus 0 \oplus 1 \\ 1 \oplus 0 \oplus 1 \oplus 1 \\ 0 \oplus 0 \oplus 1 \oplus 1 \end{pmatrix} = \begin{pmatrix} 1 \\ 1 \\ 0 \end{pmatrix}, which matches the third column of H, indicating an in position 3. Flipping the bit in position 3 (from 0 to 1) corrects the to 0110011, from which the 1011 is extracted.

Extended [8,4] Hamming Code

The extended [8,4] Hamming code is constructed by appending an overall even to each codeword of the [7,4] Hamming code, yielding a linear with parameters [8,4,4] and minimum distance d=4. This modification enhances the error-detection capability while preserving single-error correction. To form the codewords, a 7-bit codeword \mathbf{c} = (c_1, c_2, \dots, c_7) from the [7,4] Hamming code is extended by adding an eighth bit p = \sum_{i=1}^7 c_i \pmod{2}, ensuring the total 8-bit codeword has even (weight even). The resulting code has $2^4 = 16 codewords, each of length 8, and the minimum distance of 4 guarantees that any two distinct codewords differ in at least four positions. The parity-check matrix H for the extended code is a $4 \times 8 obtained by augmenting the $3 \times 7 parity-check matrix H_7 of the [7,4] code. Specifically, H = \begin{pmatrix} H_7 & \mathbf{0}_{3 \times 1} \\ \mathbf{1}_{1 \times 7} & 1 \end{pmatrix}, where \mathbf{0}_{3 \times 1} is a column vector of three zeros, and \mathbf{1}_{1 \times 7} is a row of seven ones. This structure allows the syndrome computation to leverage both the original Hamming checks and the additional overall . Encoding proceeds by first applying the [7,4] Hamming encoding to the 4 information bits to obtain the 7-bit codeword, then computing the eighth bit as the even parity over those seven bits. For decoding a received 8-bit vector \mathbf{r}, compute the syndrome \mathbf{s} = H \mathbf{r}^T \pmod{2}, a 4-bit vector. The first three bits of \mathbf{s} form the syndrome from H_7 applied to the first seven bits of \mathbf{r}. Single errors are corrected as follows: if the 3-bit syndrome is zero and the fourth bit (overall parity) is 1, flip the eighth bit; if the 3-bit syndrome is nonzero and the fourth bit is 1, flip the bit at the position indicated by the 3-bit syndrome (positions 1–7); if both are zero, assume no error. Double errors are detected when the 3-bit syndrome is nonzero but the fourth bit is 0, corresponding to a nonzero syndrome of even weight. After any single-error correction, the overall parity of the corrected word is verified to confirm consistency, with mismatch indicating a potential undetected issue beyond single or double errors. This mechanism ensures the code corrects all single-bit errors and detects all double-bit errors.

Advanced Variants

Non-Binary Hamming Codes

Non-binary Hamming codes extend the concept of binary Hamming codes to arbitrary finite fields where q is a greater than 2. The parity-check H is an m × n over with n = (q^m - 1)/(q - 1), formed by selecting one representative column from each of nonzero vectors in ^m under by nonzero elements of . This ensures that no two columns are scalar multiples of each other. The resulting has dimension k = n - m and minimum distance d = 3. These codes are perfect single-error-correcting codes, meaning the Hamming spheres of radius t = 1 around codewords exactly partition the ambient space GF(q)^n. decoding identifies both the error position and its value: for a received vector r = c + e where c is a codeword and e has a single nonzero entry β ∈ GF(q) at position j, the s = H r^T = β h_j (with h_j the j-th column of H). Since the columns represent distinct directions, the direction of s uniquely determines j, and β is recovered via field division s / h_j (componentwise, using field inverses). The Hamming code arises as the special case q = 2. An illustrative example is the ternary Hamming code (q = 3, m = 2), a [4, 2, 3]_3 code over {0, 1, 2}. A standard parity-check is H = \begin{pmatrix} 1 & 0 & 1 & 1 \\ 0 & 1 & 1 & 2 \end{pmatrix}, with columns (1,0)^T, (0,1)^T, (1,1)^T, and (1,2)^T. This code corrects any single via syndrome decoding as described. Constructing H requires careful choice of representatives to ensure full row rank m, typically by setting the leading nonzero entry of each vector to 1. Decoding relies on GF(q) arithmetic, including multiplications and inverses, which introduces computational overhead compared to operations but enables efficient correction for larger alphabets. These codes offer advantages in scenarios requiring higher , such as multilevel signaling or storage systems, by packing more information per while maintaining single- correction capability.

SECDED and Double-Error Detection

Single-error-correcting double-error-detecting (SECDED) codes are a class of linear designed with a minimum of 4, enabling them to correct any single-bit error while simultaneously detecting up to two-bit errors. This capability ensures that single errors are reliably fixed, and double errors are flagged as uncorrectable without miscorrecting them as singles, which could otherwise propagate worse faults. Hamming codes form the foundation for efficient SECDED implementations, where the basic single-error-correcting Hamming code (with distance 3) is extended by appending an overall across all bits, increasing the distance to 4. The theoretical efficiency of SECDED codes derives from the , also known as the sphere-packing bound, which for single-error correction (t=1) limits the code size by requiring that the spheres of radius 1 around codewords do not overlap and cover the space up to that radius: M \sum_{k=0}^{1} \binom{n}{k} \leq 2^n, where M is the number of codewords and n the code length. Binary Hamming codes achieve equality in this bound, making them perfect for t=1, but the extension for double-error detection introduces one extra without violating the bound for correction while ensuring distance 4 for detection. Although not perfect for t=2 (which would require a larger bound for radius 2 spheres), this construction remains near-optimal in redundancy, adding only one bit to support detection. Beyond the basic extended [8,4] Hamming code, which serves as a foundational SECDED instance, larger variants are constructed using shortened extended Hamming codes tailored for practical applications like . For example, the [72,64] SECDED code protects 64 data bits with 8 bits, derived by a higher-order extended Hamming code (e.g., based on m=7 checks) and adding the overall , achieving distance 4 with minimal overhead. This code is widely adopted in and cache systems to handle cosmic ray-induced errors, balancing storage efficiency and reliability. The detection mechanism in Hamming-based SECDED operates via syndrome decoding augmented by the overall parity check. The syndrome s is computed using the original Hamming parity-check matrix on the received word; simultaneously, the overall parity p is verified. Assuming at most two errors: if s = 0 and p = 0 (even parity matches), no is present; if s ≠ 0 and p = 1 (odd parity mismatch), a single is corrected at position indicated by s; if s ≠ 0 and p = 0 (even parity but nonzero ), a double is detected and no correction applied; if s = 0 and p = 1, an odd number of errors (likely three) is flagged as uncorrectable. This process ensures reliable operation without false corrections for double errors.

Applications and Impact

Use in Digital Systems

Hamming codes, particularly in their extended form known as single-error correction double-error detection (SECDED) variants, play a critical role in error management for (RAM) and caches in systems. In server-grade , the [72,64] SECDED Hamming code is widely implemented to protect 64-bit data words with 8 parity bits, enabling the correction of single-bit errors and detection of double-bit errors caused by transient faults such as cosmic ray-induced bit flips. This configuration has been standard in modules since the 1980s, significantly enhancing reliability in high-uptime environments like data centers where uncorrected errors could lead to system crashes or . Historically, Hamming codes were first deployed in computing hardware at Bell Laboratories during the , where they were integrated into early digital computers to mitigate errors in vacuum-tube-based memory systems. Modern processors from and continue this legacy by incorporating Hamming-based directly into their architectures, such as in the memory controllers of server CPUs like AMD's series and Intel's processors, which support SECDED for on-chip caches and main memory interfaces. In hardware implementations, decoding is typically performed using syndrome lookup tables that map computed parity-check syndromes to error positions, allowing efficient single-bit correction with minimal latency in ASIC or FPGA designs. For instance, Intel's Agilex FPGAs employ extended Hamming code decoders in their embedded (eSRAM) blocks to ensure during read operations. In software contexts, Hamming codes are simulated for error correction in storage systems, such as level 2 arrays, where bit-interleaved parity across disks emulates Hamming protection to recover from drive failures or bit s in file systems. The performance overhead of these implementations is modest but essential for reliability; the [72,64] SECDED code introduces approximately 12.5% storage (8 parity bits per 64 data bits), which translates to increased capacity costs but prevents frequent halts in radiation-prone environments. The foundational [7,4] and extended [8,4] Hamming codes serve as building blocks for these larger-scale protections, scaling the error-correcting capability to practical sizes without excessive area or power penalties in hardware.

Theoretical Significance

The binary Hamming codes are perfect codes, attaining equality in the for single-error-correcting (t=1) linear codes, which implies that their spheres of radius 1 around codewords exactly the entire ambient without overlap or gaps, achieving maximal efficiency in . This property underscores their optimality for the given parameters, as they saturate the bound derived from the volume of Hamming balls, ensuring no wasted capacity in error-correcting capability. Among nontrivial perfect codes over finite fields, the Hamming codes stand alongside the Golay code and the Golay code as rare examples that meet this stringent criterion. The theoretical legacy of Hamming codes extends deeply into , serving as a foundational model for algebraic constructions of error-correcting codes. Their parity-check matrix design, based on all nonzero columns of the in higher dimensions, inspired the Bose-Chaudhuri-Hocquenghem (BCH) codes developed in the late and early , which generalize the single-error correction to arbitrary multiple-error patterns using roots of unity in finite fields. This influence propagated to broader algebraic frameworks, including Goppa codes and , where evaluation and interpolation over algebraic varieties build upon the linear algebra principles pioneered by Hamming codes to achieve superior asymptotic performance. In , Hamming codes have contributed to robust error handling in challenging environments, such as satellite links and deep-space communications, where their simplicity enables efficient single-error correction amid high noise. Additionally, enhanced designs leverage Hamming code structures alongside Reed-Solomon mechanisms to manage burst errors, allowing recovery from localized damage in visual data matrices. The binary Hamming codes, with parameters [2^m - 1, 2^m - 1 - m, 3] for integer m \geq 2, exemplify this versatility in theoretical and practical bounds.

References

  1. [1]
    [PDF] The Bell System Technical Journal - Zoo | Yale University
    SINGLE ERROR CORRECTING CODES. To construct a single error correcting code we first assign m of the 1t avail- able positions as information positions. We ...
  2. [2]
    [PDF] Hamming Codes
    At the same time, Richard. Hamming, a colleague of Shannon's at Bell Laboratories, found a need for error correction in his work on computers. Parity checking ...
  3. [3]
    [PDF] Some error-correcting codes and their applications
    In this chapter we describe three types of error-correcting linear codes that have been used in major applications, viz. photographs from spacecraft (first ...
  4. [4]
    [PDF] Error detecting and error correcting codes - Calhoun
    The paper gives esplicit solu- tions for the cases of single error detection, single error correction, and single error correction plus double error detection.
  5. [5]
    What is Hamming code and how does it work? - TechTarget
    Jul 11, 2022 · Hamming code is commonly used ECC RAM to detect and correct errors when data is stored or transmitted. Hamming code history. Before Hamming code ...
  6. [6]
    Error-correcting codes - ECC - James W. Hanlon
    May 2, 2020 · Hamming codes are an efficient family of codes using additional redundant bits to detect up to two-bit errors and correct single-bit errors.
  7. [7]
    [PDF] A Modern Look at Telegraph Codebooks - Columbia CS
    Early telegraph codes had two ancestors, codes for semaphore networks and ... ference between today's simple parity checks versus error-correcting codes.
  8. [8]
    Columbia University Computing History
    For computer use, usually 8 holes were used: 7 data bits and 1 parity bit. Paper tape was also used in telecommunications (telex) and in the printing ...
  9. [9]
    [PDF] VANNESS - ibm-1401.info
    Two-Out-of-Five Code. Figure 90-Bi-quinary Code characters not shown; these characters, however, follow the same scheme of bit arrangement. The C position ...
  10. [10]
    [PDF] Instruction-Reference 1410 System Fundamentals - Bitsavers.org
    The checking of bit count per character is parity checking. TWO-OUT-OF-FIVE CODE. The two-out-of-five code (2/5) as used by the 1410 is strictly a numeric ...
  11. [11]
    [PDF] A Brief History of the Development of Error Correcting Codes
    It describes the history in which the author was a participant in some of the early developments of error-correcting codes and computers. ... During the early ...
  12. [12]
    [PDF] Early Background of our Telegraph Codes - QSL.net
    The code actually utilises an eight bit byte with the eighth bit often used for parity error check on the other bits. Additional start and stop bits are ...
  13. [13]
    CIO Blast from the Past: 60 years of Hamming codes
    Nov 25, 2010 · The paper, titled Error Detecting and Error Correcting Codes, by RW Hamming, outlined a method for performing computing operations on a large ...
  14. [14]
    Richard Wesley Hamming - Computer Pioneers
    Richard W. Hamming's invention of error-correcting codes for computers was the result of fortune favoring the prepared mind-and of frustration.Missing: machine | Show results with:machine
  15. [15]
  16. [16]
    Hamming Code -- from Wolfram MathWorld
    A binary Hamming code H_r of length n=2^r-1 (with r>=2 ) is a linear code with parity-check matrix H whose columns consist of all nonzero binary vectors of ...
  17. [17]
    [PDF] Notes 1: Introduction, linear codes
    The Hamming code is best understood by the structure of its parity check matrix. This will also allow us to generalize Hamming codes to larger lengths.Missing: citation | Show results with:citation
  18. [18]
    [PDF] Low Complexity Soft-Input Soft-Output Hamming Decoder
    One of the here proposed decoding algorithms can achieve a linear complexity with a performance degradation of. 0.2 dB compared to maximum likelihood decoding.<|control11|><|separator|>
  19. [19]
    [PDF] Chapter 13 Error-Correcting Codes
    Oct 13, 2021 · 11Note that the perhaps peculiar name “shortened extended binary Hamming code” means precisely a binary Hamming code that has been extended ...
  20. [20]
    [PDF] Notes on Error Correcting Codes - Brown Math
    Just as the (8,4) extended Hamming code is used to produce the E8 lattice packing, the (24,12) Golay code is used to construct the Leech lattice. The. Leech ...
  21. [21]
    [PDF] Information Theory Hamming Codes and Bounds on Codes
    – There are qm-1 possible nonzero q-ary m-tuples. – For each q-ary m-tuple, there are q-1 distinct non- zero m-tuples that are a multiple of that m-tuple.
  22. [22]
    \(q\)-ary Hamming code | Error Correction Zoo
    Member of an infinite family of perfect linear q-ary codes with parameters [(q^r-1)/(q-1),(q^r-1)/(q-1)-r, 3]_q for r \geq 2.
  23. [23]
    [PDF] A Realistic Evaluation of Memory Hardware Errors and Software ...
    SECDED stands for single-error correction, double- error detection. Single error correction requires the code to have a Hamming distance of at least 3. In ...
  24. [24]
    A memory error protection scheme with novel address mapping for ...
    Conventional ECC memory using the Hamming-based (72, 64) SECDED code has a storage overhead of 12.5%. Hamming code is actually a special case of BCH codes with ...
  25. [25]
    [PDF] AMD Hammer Family Processor BIOS and Kernel Developer's Guide
    Jul 8, 2007 · ... ECC Syndromes ... Hamming code. It can detect one bit error and correct it, it can detect two bit errors but it can not correct them ...
  26. [26]
    10.4.4.5. Error Checking and Correction Algorithm - Intel
    The HPS error checking algorithm is based on an extended Hamming code, which is single-error correcting and double-error detecting (SECDED). The computation can ...
  27. [27]
    4.2.2. eSRAM System Features - Intel
    The ECC can improve data integrity by encoding write data with extended Hamming code and decoding read data for Single-bit Error Correction, Double-bit Error ...
  28. [28]
    A case for redundant arrays of inexpensive disks (RAID)
    While we can imagine improvements in software file systems via buffering for ... Such largess inspires the next levels of RAID. 8. Second Level RAID: Hamming Code ...
  29. [29]
    Error Correction Checking (ECC) Core - AMD
    The adaptable core supports Hamming and Hsiao algorithms for Single Error Correction and Double Error Detection (SEC-DED) error correction codes (ECC).
  30. [30]
    [PDF] Hamming codes and some theory of linear error correcting codes
    Mar 21, 2003 · ... systematic form, but that would necessarily ... We will redevelope Hamming using these concepts. The generator matrix for the [7,4] Hamming code ...
  31. [31]
    Perfect code | Error Correction Zoo
    An code is perfect if parameters n, K, t, and q are such that the Hamming (aka sphere-packing) bound becomes an equality.<|separator|>
  32. [32]
    Perfect Code -- from Wolfram MathWorld
    Hamming codes and the Golay code are the only nontrivial examples of perfect codes.
  33. [33]
    Perfect codes - Applied Mathematics Consulting
    Feb 26, 2020 · There are three kinds of perfect binary codes: Hamming codes, one Golay code, and trivial codes. Trivial codes are simple but inefficient.
  34. [34]
    [PDF] Chapter 9: BCH, Reed-Solomon, and Related Codes
    Feb 21, 1999 · BCH and Reed-Solomon codes are multiple-error correcting codes, a generalization of single-error correcting Hamming codes.
  35. [35]
    BCH and Hamming - RPTU
    Nov 6, 2024 · BCH codes are cyclic codes described by a parity check matrix. Hamming codes are BCH codes with t=1. Extended BCH codes have an additional ...Missing: influence | Show results with:influence
  36. [36]
    Algebraic-geometry codes | Error Correction Zoo
    Puncturing the code yields the perfect [ 5 , 3 , 3 ] 4 quaternary Hamming code known as the shortened hexacode or shorter hexacode [4]. Both codes are sometimes ...
  37. [37]
    [PDF] A New Approach for Detecting and Correcting Errors in the Satellite ...
    The proposed fault tolerant model is based on the Hamming Error correcting codes. The model provides fault detection and correction functionality in the data ...
  38. [38]
    [PDF] An efficient coding system for deep space probes with specific ...
    The difference of each of the messages is measured by the Hamming distance, which is a count of all the bits in an error message which differ from the correct.
  39. [39]
    Rich QR Codes With Three-Layer Information Using Hamming Code
    Jun 12, 2019 · In this paper, we introduce a novel rich QR code with three-layer information that utilizes the characteristics of the Hamming code and the error correction ...
  40. [40]
    [PDF] Study of Puncturing Techniques for Polar Codes in 5G Cellular and ...
    Dec 10, 2018 · Abstract—This paper presents a puncturing technique based on the channel polarization index for the design of rate- compatible polar codes ...