Talk:Decoding methods

Self-referential

This article is hopelessly self-referential. Someone included the phrase "in this article" numerous times. Can someone fix this? Mgm|^(talk) 20:38, May 25, 2005 (UTC)

Dude, hopelessly self-referential is more than a slight exaggeration: there were just two instances of the phrase "this article". I agree that being so close together it made for cumbersome reading, but to suggest that the article is somehow beyond hope strikes me as ridiculous. Did you read the entire piece or did you get to the second line and assume that every line thereafter would contain the phrase "this article" simply becuase the first two did? That's not how mathematical induction works my friend ... reetep 21:39, 25 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Cleanup

I've tagged this article for cleanup, as it's in desperate need of a whole variety of things doing to it, preferably by someone at least vaguely familiar with the subject matter. Should it not happen soonish, I'll do it myself, but that may take a while, so if anyone else wants to have a go, please feel free. A few things that I think ought to happen, in no particular order:

Remove self references
Check all the mathematics, as I spotted a serious error
Add to WikiProject Mathematics
Remove and cleanup repeated stuff (what to do in the event of non-unique decoding, for example)
Add references (I'm using Dominic Welsh, Codes & Cryptography, as that's my course textbook, but I'd expect there to be a number of others).

me_and (talk) 04:52, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I tried to clean up the formatting and words. I added a reference and some intra-wiki links as well. I tried to make the section on decoding conventions more understandable, but it may just be too long. Feedback is welcome. Would anyone vote to remove the cleanup tag now, or do you think there is more that still needs to be done? --Culix (talk) 03:11, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Error?

Meand is talking about errors. Is the part about Maximum Likelihood Decoding one of them? The author seems to claim that maximizing P(x received | y sent) means "the codeword that was most likely to have been sent given that x was received." I don't agree to that without some other conditions. Someone with knowledge here who can help? —Preceding unsigned comment added by NimoTh (talk • contribs) 04:49, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Copyediting

As a non-mathematician, I found the use of English was appropriate for the subject matter. I have therefore removed the 'copyedit' tag. --Greenmaven (talk) 00:57, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Missing topic

Minimum error decoding rule — Preceding unsigned comment added by 14.139.216.89 (talk) 21:26, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

More generality

Why is this article only discussing binary codes? Decoding (and code theory in general) works fine over $\mathbb {F} _{q}^{n}$ . Xpple (talk) 21:50, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

create page: decoding megacluster (AI and ANNs)

Create ANN (artificial neural network) clusters = ANNs of different design each (Brodmann-like areas) used to create a big brain.

Use typical ANNs, Flexible ANNs, non-ANN programming and generative pre-trained transformer-like (similar idea; not necessarily an exact copy).

Combine all the above to create a Flexible Artificial Neural Network Cluster (complete brain) for decoding. It requires coherence centers [to test and edit the outputs]; otherwise it doesn't work as a single cluster/ brain.

Run it on a supercomputer. The big brain cluster must clone itself inside the supercomputer and test alternative approaches. If it gets decoding hints, the system is supposed to share it inside the system; but with some limitation, because a false hint shouldn't destroy the overall effort. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:2149:8A5B:6D00:DD08:5119:8A49:2D76 (talk) 00:33, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]