Placeholder Image

字幕表 動画を再生する

  • In the last video we saw how

  • Parody could be used to detect any single bit error that occurs when transmitting from one system to another

  • And we can inject an error here too to sort of demonstrate that but the limitation of parity is if there's more than one error

  • That occurs in your message, then it may not detect it. And actually in this case that seems to be what has happened here

  • So, for example, we have a comma in our you know

  • hello comma world

  • Over here no comma so there was definitely an error and of course

  • I

  • injected an error you saw that but I received parity is is even which

  • Indicates that we did not detect a parity error

  • Even though there was an error and that's just a limitation of parity is if there's one bit error

  • You'll you're guaranteed to catch it

  • But if there's more than one depending on how many errors there are you basically have a 50/50 chance of catching them

  • And then at the end of the last video I showed you some potential ways to work around this by potentially adding more parity bits

  • So if we have our message here hello world when we can convert that to binary

  • we've got the the binary representation of what we're sending and

  • You know, just four four basic parity. We have a single parity bit

  • and in this case if we count up all the ones in this message, there are like 49 ones and

  • In order to send this with even parity. We want to send either 48 or 50

  • We want to send an even number of ones so we have 49 ones

  • We need to add another one so that we send an even number of ones

  • But if we change any two bits in here, for example, we just change any any two ones to zero

  • So instead of having 50 ones we'll have forty-eight ones that's still an even number and so we won't detect a parity error

  • So one way to work around that is to add more parity bits

  • So instead of having a single parity bit for the entire message

  • We can have a separate parity bit for each byte

  • And of course the trade-off is if we're sending a parity bit for each byte then we're sending more data overall

  • Because we're essentially adding 12 percent overhead to our entire transmission and maybe that's worth it because you want to catch errors

  • But even here you still may not catch every error because if you have multiple errors in a single byte

  • Then you may not catch that with the parity bit

  • And so you could keep going you could say well send a parity bit for every four bits or a parity bit for every two

  • Bits or even a parity bit for every bit which essentially just means you're sending the entire message twice

  • But all of that just adds more overhead and so it seems like there's this trade-off, right?

  • so in this video

  • I want to talk about some ways to sort of do better than this too to get a better air detection

  • But lower over that's sort of our goal here

  • And one thing to keep in mind is just the types of errors that we might that we might expect

  • So it's actually not true that it's equally likely for every bit to just randomly flip errors tend to happen in certain patterns

  • So for example the error that we had here where you know

  • We were supposed to be receiving hello comma world but we received hello and then and then two spaces

  • That error happened because of two bit flips. So if we look at the difference between a comma and a space

  • It's just these two bits, right?

  • It's 0 0 1 0

  • In both cases and then it's either 1 1 0 0 or 0 0 0 0

  • and so what happened while we were transmitting this is I just hit this button to

  • Drop those two bits and that that's what injected the error and because it was 2 bits that flipped

  • We didn't catch it with the parity, but we wouldn't catch you here either, right?

  • because if those two bits flipped

  • Then this parity bits still gonna be a 1 right because we'd go from 3 ones in here to just one one in

  • Here and that's still an odd number. So we'd still have a 1 out here as our parity bit

  • So we still wouldn't catch it with even this scheme

  • and in fact this this type of error where you have multiple bit errors in a row is called a burst error and it's quite

  • Common because you might imagine some sort of thing interfering with your with your signal

  • Maybe it's not a button like this. But but some sort of interference that happens

  • It's gonna happen, you know over or maybe some short period of time and corrupt a couple different bits in a row

  • So one thing we could do with parity. That's actually much better at catching

  • Burst errors is instead of using a parity bit to protect a sequence of bits in a row have the parity bit protect an interleaved

  • Sequence of bits so one way to do that is something like this where we have the same data here

  • But instead of computing a parity bit for each byte is essentially compute a parity bit for each column here

  • Which is sort of each each bit position within the byte

  • So for example, if we look at the first bit of every byte, well this case they're all zeros

  • So the parity bit is a 0

  • And we just do that for every bit position at the end here. We're gonna have

  • Another another essentially another byte of 8 parity bits

  • and so we send our message and then we send these eight parity bits and this is

  • Much less susceptible to burst errors

  • so for example

  • if we change both of these bits here like we did in our message where we lost our comma we would detect that because both

  • Of these parity bits down here would be invalid now

  • This still has limitations, of course, so just like here if we change two bits in a row

  • We wouldn't necessarily detect that here

  • If you change two bits in a column, you wouldn't detect that and so there's this trade-off between you know

  • Parity bits per row versus parity bits per column and which one you might choose depends on the types of errors

  • you might expect and

  • in most communication systems burst errors are actually pretty common and so something like a a

  • Parity bit per column here might be a better choice

  • But know that you you may not catch multiple bit flips in a column

  • So that's the trade-off that you're making but maybe we don't need to make that trade-off

  • you know a few of you suggested in the comments on the last video using a checksum and

  • The term checksum can can technically refer to any additional little bit of information that you attach to your message to validate that it's correct

  • But it can also literally mean a sum

  • So if we take the the characters in our message and get their ASCII numerical equivalent

  • We just add those up and in the case of hello world

  • We get 11 61. And so what if we just send our message and we send this number 11 61

  • Well, then you'd think well if anything in here changes, well, then the sums probably going to change. So is that better or

  • As good or worse than these parity things we've been looking at well to figure that out

  • it actually helps to look at this addition in binary because you know

  • We can do the addition in decimal like we did here we could do the same addition in binary

  • We should get the same answer

  • And in fact, you know, this answer we get here is 11 61 in in binary

  • But if we look at the way this addition works, there are actually a lot of similarities to parity going on here

  • and so we we can actually sort of compare what's going on here to what's going on with

  • Parity scenario where we were taking a parity bit for every column

  • Well, it turns out that actually for this first column here on the right

  • It's the same

  • Because if we just count up how many ones there are which I guess is the same as adding them

  • We got 1 2 3 4 5 and so the sum there would be 5 of course. There is no 5 in binary

  • so the way you represent 5 is 1 0 1 so

  • You would put a 1 down here. And then we carry a 1 0 over into these next columns

  • So the 5 here is 1 0 1 we actually look at this one that we're putting down here at the bottom

  • this is

  • Identical to a parity bit for this column because if you add up this column or you count the ones however you want to think

  • about it

  • if the answer is even then it's a multiple of 2 and

  • In binary a multiple of 2 is going to have a 0 in the last place

  • Yeah, just like in decimal if you think about a number that has a zero in the last place

  • It's going to be a multiple of 10 when binary phase 2 if you have a 0 here it's a multiple of 2

  • and if it's not a zero, which I mean in binary

  • The only other option is that it's one then it's not a multiple 2 which means that it's odd

  • So this bit here essentially is a parity bit for this column

  • And then the next column works the same way, right? We add these up and there's 1 2 3 4

  • So there's 4 ones in that column or you can think of the sum being a 4

  • That's even so you put a 0 there if we're doing parity

  • but if we're adding then 4 is 1 0 0 so you put the 0 there and carry the 1 0 so 1 0

  • 0 and you carry, but what's going on that's different than parity here

  • It shows up when we get to the third column here when we add this up in the third column

  • We got 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ones

  • But it's actually 10 ones because we we have this one that we carried from the first column and so because it's 10

  • That's was it 1 0 1 0 so we put a 0 down here and carry the 1 0 so

  • It's 1 0 1 0 and so it's interesting now is that this number here is not the parity bit

  • For this third column from the right as it as it was originally it's the parity bit of the 3rd column from the right plus

  • What was carried in from these other additions over here on the right?

  • and

  • So in some sense you can think of what we're doing here with this addition as being very similar

  • To computing a parity bit for each column

  • But we're kind of holding on to some extra information when we do that

  • and then that extra information is percolating over into the columns to the left and

  • So in some sense, we're getting kind of the best of both worlds here

  • Which is that if we have a burst error and several bits change within a single row here

  • Then we'll catch that in our checksum down here. But also if several bits change in a column, we may catch that as well

  • So for example, if both of these ones were to change to 0 the parity wouldn't change still be a 1 down here

  • but it would be a 1 because the the sum of this column instead of being 5 would be 3 and

  • So while this wouldn't change what we carry does instead of carrying a 1 0 1 4 a 5 it would just be 1 1

  • 4 3

  • So that would change the parity of these next two columns or the sum if you want to think of it that way of these

  • Next two columns and so we're able to catch that type of error here

  • Now in practice you may not actually send the entire trek sound like this

  • because if we're sending 8-bit words

  • Oftentimes what you'll do is you'll just chop off

  • This first part here and just send eight bits of the checksum and that's that's a pretty common thing to do and you can think

  • Of that as essentially being equivalent to sending the remainder of a division problem here

  • So if you add it up you get 1161 if we divide by 256 we get four which is the part on the left there

  • And then the remainder 137 is the part on the right and we just send that as our essentially is our checksum

  • That's a pretty common way to do this because if you're already sending 8-bit words

  • It may not be so easy to just send an extra 11 bits

  • but of course the drawback of lopping off this lose leftmost bits is you know

  • What we just talked about this sort of information that percolates over to the left here you'd end up losing some of that

  • And so one thing that's done

  • Fairly commonly is to do an end-around carry where you take this extra bit that you you've had there and you essentially add it back

  • To your original checksum, so you just sort of lop that off

  • Move it around here and then add it and then you you end up with with this number here

  • And essentially what that does is that you're doing this sort of end around carry

  • So when you're adding these leftmost columns here instead of carrying off to the left

  • you're essentially sort of carrying back around to the right here and

  • Taking this extra information and holding on to it over here on the right side of your addition problem here

  • And so this ends up kind of retaining some of that information

  • Incidentally this technique of doing this end around carry like this when you're doing addition is referred to as one's complement addition and it has

  • a few other interesting properties

  • I won't go into all of that right now. But if you're interested, I would encourage you to go look up ones complement addition

  • Now if we do this end around carry, it turns out that actually what's going on here is instead of dividing by 256

  • What we're essentially doing is dividing by 255

  • And it might be interesting for you to sort of think through why that's the case

  • but but essentially, you know, we take our sum here 1161 if we divide that by 255 this remainder

  • 141 it's actually for more than 137. That's what we end up with. Here is our final checksum if you will

  • But one technique that's kind of interesting is rather than sending our our message followed by a checksum of 141

  • We can send our message followed by sort of the inverse of that

  • So if we just flip all over the bits we get this other number. I think this is 114

  • And it ends up being the same as 255 minus 141 if we send this is our checksum

  • So for example if we send our message

  • Followed by by this number. There's 114 when we do our addition

  • You know

  • We do the addition the same way and then we end up with this a little bit over here so we can add that in

  • And then we add that together we get all ones and then if again we flip all the bits again

  • we get two zeros and that's

  • Essentially a very quick way to check that

  • we got the right checksum and that's an interesting side effect of this ones complement addition where essentially what we're doing is we're adding

  • And getting the remainder when we divide by 255 and because we can just easily flip the bits to get

  • 255 minus this number when we add that in we add this up

  • including this checksum

  • Assuming nothing has changed we would expect to get a multiple of 255 and that's in a sort of where we end up with

  • This is a very clever way to do a checksum

  • And in fact, this is the exact technique that is used in what's called the internet checksum

  • Which is a checksum that is performed on every IP packet on the Internet

  • The only difference is that for the internet checksum

  • The data is jumped up into 16-bit words instead of 8-bit words

  • But otherwise, it's the same thing you add it up. You you carry this bit. That's carried. You bring wrap that around

  • Add that together flip it and then that becomes the checksum and then you can validate it just by doing that same addition

  • Wrapping around and you'll end up when you flip it with all zeros

  • Assuming that it's correct

  • and that's how the internet checksum works obviously very widely used but the checksum still has

  • Limitations and you know to think about what some of those limitations are you can think about, you know

  • Since we're doing addition here

  • One of the things about addition is that the order that you add numbers in doesn't matter and so the order that these bytes show

  • Up also wouldn't affect the final checksum validation

  • So if we received this message and each of these each of these letters was just like flipped around in a completely different order

  • We'd get the same checksum and we have no way of detecting that that had been reordered like that

  • That's one limitation of this type of checksum

  • now another limitation could be you know data being inserted or removed now, obviously if we inserted a you know,

  • Just a random byte in here

  • We'd probably detect that with a checksum or if we removed any of these bytes, we would certainly detect that with our checksum

  • But if you just inserted a bunch of bytes, there were all zeros

  • You wouldn't have any way of detecting that so just in the middle of our message if we instead of having this 13

  • Character message, you know, it turned into a 20 character message and they were just like a bunch of zeros inserted, you know

  • We received the wrong thing, but the checksum would be the same because when you add and 0 doesn't change the result

  • Same thing if our message had some zeroes in it

  • No, in this case, none of our bytes are just all zeros, but if we had some zeros

  • You know some bytes that were just all zeros if some of those bytes got removed from our message in transit again

  • It wouldn't affect the checksum. We wouldn't be able to detect that

  • Hey, you may be thinking Oh extra zero bytes getting inserted into our message or bytes arriving out of order

  • You know, that's that's unlikely in our in our application here and and that's certainly true

  • I mean, we're definitely not gonna get things arriving out of order because you know

  • Our transmission here is just a wire right every byte

  • They go every bit that goes in is gonna the wire on this end is gonna come out of the wire on on this end

  • In the same order

  • There's just nothing in here that's gonna cause them to be out of order

  • But in more complex networks data arriving out of order

  • This is actually quite possible because there might be multiple paths to get from point A to point B and some data might go across

  • path one and other data might go across the other path and

  • if those paths don't take quite the same amount of time some of the data might show up before the other data even though it

  • was sent after it and you get data out of words, you'd want to be able to detect that and

  • So and so something like the checksum that we just saw might not be able to catch that

  • Now there are ways to use checksums that are able to detect out of order data

  • and just as an example one common sort of low-tech way is these

  • ISBN numbers that are on the backs of of every book and there's a couple different formats as a 13 digit format and a 10

  • digit format I look at the 10 digit one and

  • Basically, they look at this 10 digit number. There's nine digits

  • And then this last digit in this case the six

  • That's actually a checksum of the other digits and it's a checksum that also is able to detect if any of the digits get swapped

  • And in this case that's important because you might imagine somebody is typing this number into a computer and they just mix up a couple

  • Digits instead of four six five they put four or five six or something like that

  • You want to be able to catch that and have the computer say oh that's not a valid number. So the way this works is

  • you've got the

  • ISBN number here at least the first nine digits of it and the way that we calculate that last digit that's six

  • Is that instead of just doing a simple sum of these digits?

  • Like we would for a normal some first

  • what we do is multiply them by a number that indicates the place that they're in so we multiply

  • The first digit by 10 the next digit by 9 8 7 so forth and we get this

  • sequence of numbers here and this is actually what we add and

  • So instead of you know adding four plus six plus five and so forth, you know

  • We end up adding 36 plus 48 plus 35 and adding that it kind of encodes the the place that the number is

  • And then we end up with our sum in this case. It's 192

  • Then you get that final digit. What we do is we divide by 11, so

  • We divide 192 by 11 and we get 17. We actually don't care about that part

  • what we care about is the remainder which is 5 and it's interesting that we're dividing by 11 that's sort of an interesting choice and

  • The reason for that is that each of the numbers that we're adding here to get to our sum are

  • the the product of two numbers

  • neither of which are factors of 11 and

  • so what that means is that if either of these numbers change either the

  • The digit or the or the place essentially for that digit, then the sum will change and the sum will change by some value

  • That's not a multiple of 11

  • And because of that we'll know that the remainder that we end up getting

  • Will be different if any of these digits changes or if the place of any of these digits changes which is which is pretty powerful

  • That's what we want

  • And then the other thing you'll notice is that we don't actually put the 5 in here as our check digit

  • We we take 11 minus that 5 and put a 6 as our check digit

  • So if our check digit ends up being 6, which is what we see on the book here

  • And the reason for that is is this other pattern that you might have started to notice with these error detection codes

  • Which is we'll take the entire number with the checksum and compute a checksum of that what we'll end up with is

  • Ends up being zero. So for example here take six times one. We're going to get six instead of 192. This will be 198 and

  • Then if we divide 11 into 198

  • We get 18 and that goes in evenly there's there's a remainder of 0

  • And that's an important pattern to notice and you've probably seen that popping up multiple times here, you know

  • So instead of putting our 5 here

  • We we put a 6 such that when we recompute the checksum including the 6 we end up with essentially a remainder of 0

  • same thing happened when we're doing these checks on they're sort of like the internet checksum, which is you know,

  • We get our answer here when we do our ones complement addition

  • But then we invert it such that when we do the same

  • Operation with our sequence of numbers including that that inverted checksum the answer we get once we invert it also ends up being zero

  • So we sort of apply the same process to the original data plus the checksum we get a zero and that's how we validate it

  • and

  • In fact, this is the same principle

  • We saw with our parity bit here

  • which is we send our message and then we send a parity bit and

  • Eventually the parity bit that we're going to send here is going to be a one and we send that parity bit of one such

  • That when we add that parity bit to our message we end up with a parity of zero for the whole thing

  • so it's that same concept of

  • crafting your check bit or check digit or

  • Checksum, whatever. It is crafting that in such a way so that when you recompute it on the receiver

  • Including that checksum, if you received it correctly you end up with a zero, so that's that's a pattern

  • We'll see over and over again now incidentally because we're dividing by eleven a remainder and hence

  • our checksum could be any number from zero to ten not to zero to nine and

  • So in some cases, you'll see a book that instead of having a number from zero to nine

  • It has an X there in that last digit and that just means that the checksum was a ten

  • And we talked about out of order errors and burst errors as potential problems

  • but of course

  • You can also just have random bit errors that just occur randomly

  • And in order to think about how good a particular error detection scheme is at detecting these random bit errors

  • It's a useful concept to think about which is called hamming distance

  • And the Hamming distance is essentially the number of bits that are changed between two messages

  • So for example this message hi

  • And this message ho

  • Have a Hamming distance of two

  • because the only difference between these two messages including the parity bit is just these two bits have been flipped and

  • So we could say the Hamming distance between these two messages is two

  • But we think about error detection

  • What we want to think about is the Hamming distance between is called valid code words and a valid codeword

  • Well, it depends on the error detection scheme you're using so if we're we're using parity like this then well

  • we have to decide what type of parity so in this case we're saying we're going to use even parity and

  • a valid codeword and even parity has NEC the bits that has an even number of ones you

  • Know he sequence if it's including the parity bit has an even number of ones so both of these

  • Here have an even number of ones and so both of these are valid code word

  • If you had a sequence of bits where only one bit had flipped, but the parity bit was still 0 for example

  • Then it would have an odd number of ones over all and so that would not be a valid code word

  • And the way all this terminology is useful is it gives us a way to quantify how good?

  • parity in this case is at detecting a random bit errors and

  • So because the Hamming distance between valid code words is two bits

  • That means that you have to change at least two bits in your message in

  • Order to sort of I guess fool the the parity detection scheme

  • Well, how about check sums well checksum is actually the same thing, so in this case, I have a message

  • hi, and then I have a message over here ha with the parentheses that you know, maybe got corrupted and

  • It got corrupted just by changing these two bits

  • I changed a 1 to a zero and a zero to a one

  • And so the sum ends up being the same and then the checksum you can see is the same in both messages

  • And so when we add those up I get all ones

  • Which is how we validate that this is a valid codeword

  • And so again with a checksum you have this concept of a valid codeword and a valid codeword is one

  • where well when you add everything up

  • Including the checksum you get all ones or you can think about it you add it up and then flip all the bits you get

  • All zeros, however, you want to think about that

  • so here are two messages both are valid code words under under the

  • Checksum scheme that we talked about and the difference between these two valid code words

  • Is just two bits and so the Hamming distance essentially between valid code words for checksum is two bits

  • So what does that mean?

  • that means that the minimum number of bits that have to be flipped before you're able to detect an error with a checksum is

  • two bits

  • And so in some sense checksum is no better than then parity

  • And of course we've seen that checksum is is better than parity in a lot of ways

  • But at least in this dimension or this in this measurement of Hamming distance, both of them are susceptible

  • To just two bits being flipped they can both be fooled

  • Well, there are error detection schemes that have a higher hemming distance

  • So just an example if we go back to the parity examples that we're looking at earlier in the video here

  • Here we have hello world

  • We have a single parity bit and as you've seen many times

  • Of course, if you change any one bit in here, then then this entire thing will become an invalid code word

  • But if we have two bit errors, then we wouldn't detect that at all

  • So like I just said parity has a Hamming distance of two

  • But how about how about this scheme here where we have a parity bit for for each byte. Well, it's the same thing

  • I mean we could just change two bits in in a single row here and

  • We'd fool this and you'd have a you'd have what appears to be a valid message even though two bits changed

  • So again, this scheme has a Hamming distance of two

  • How about here? Well, same thing obviously, you know, you change two bits in a column and you'd fool it as well. So

  • Hamming distance for parity it seems in all of these cases is is gonna be two

  • But check out what happens when we combine all of these

  • And we send a parity bit for for every byte

  • But then we also send a parity bit for each column

  • and

  • Then we also send the parity bit here for the entire message

  • which turns out is also the parity bit for this last column of parity bits and it's also the parity bit for

  • This last row of parity bits conveniently enough

  • If we send all of this all of these parity bits, then it turns out we're able to detect more random bit errors

  • So for example, obviously if we change any particular bit in here, we would detect that you know

  • because if we change this bit here, for example

  • Then the parity for this row would be wrong. The parity for this column would be wrong

  • And the overall parity would be wrong. So so one bit error easy to detect just like any other parity scenario

  • Well now what happens if we change two bits. Well, we change two bits in the same row then the

  • Parity bit for the rows not going to detect it. But the parity bits for the two columns will detect it. Same thing

  • If we if we change two bits in two different rows, but in the same column

  • You know the column parity bit won't detected but the two row parity bits will and in fact

  • You can change any two bits anywhere in here and you let me try them all if you want

  • But you can change any two bits in here and you and you'd still be able to detect that

  • Well, how about three bits? Well, if we change three bits, I mean there's a couple different options as to how they're arranged

  • But you can imagine well either all three bits are in the same row

  • In which case the parity for that row, which would be well and parity for the columns for that matter

  • but you can have two bits in a row that change and then one bit in another row and

  • This row here the parity would check out that would be fine

  • And then of course this column here the parity would check out as well and that would be fine

  • But this column it wouldn't right because you only you only have one bit that changed in this column

  • And so you'd still detect that and in fact, you can try any arrangement of three bit errors

  • And you would be able to detect it

  • How about for bidders? Well, four bit errors

  • We could change two bits in in this row and we would not be able to detect that

  • the the parity for this row would still be correct and

  • Then we could change two bits in this row and same thing the parity for that row would be correct

  • And because we can arrange the four bits so that you know, there's two in in these two columns here

  • We won't be able to detect that either and so finally by changing four bits

  • We're able to transform this message in a way where we aren't able to detect that there's any error with it

  • And so it turns out with this scheme the number of bits that you have to change to go from any one sort of valid

  • Encoding or any what we call a valid codeword to another valid codeword is four bits

  • It's the minimum number of bits that have to change and they have to of course be the right four bits

  • But the minimum is four bits and so we would say that this scheme has a Hamming distance of four

  • Which of course is, you know better than simple parity that are even then a checksum

  • But of course there's there's drawbacks, right?

  • I mean the obvious drawback with this scheme is the amount of overhead that it takes right because we're adding

  • You know an extra bit for every byte

  • So that's something like twelve and a half percent overhead there plus an extra byte essentially for the overall message

  • So we're adding quite a bit of overhead with with this game

  • Of course a longer message means more of these of these parity bits over here

  • So there's a trade-off again, you know, we're sending more data to get you know, sort of a better

  • quote unquote better scheme

  • And of course overhead and effectiveness of catching different types of errors

  • Isn't the only thing that we care about we might also care about how easy an algorithm is to implement in hardware

  • so for example parity turned out to be very simple to

  • Implement with just a couple chips like this and we're actually computing the parity bit in hardware and sending that along

  • Checksum, you can imagine be much more complex to to actually try implement in hardware by ourselves may be fairly trivial to do in software

  • Now that we have these nice little micro processors we can do all sorts of fancy stuff

  • But if we really want to be very efficient

  • We may just want to compute a checksum in hardware

  • And that's another consideration is how easy it is to implement some of these different algorithms. We've been talking about purely in hardware

  • And so that's why I'm going to talk about one more algorithm in the next video that turns out to be a really powerful

  • Algorithm and that's the the CRC the cyclical redundancy check

  • And it turns out you're able to devise CRC checks that are able to detect random bit errors

  • In fact have a very hide Hamming distance

  • And they're also able to detect out of order data and very good at detecting burst errors

  • So almost ideal for what we're what we're talking about here

  • But that's want to be talking about in a lot of detail in the next video

  • We're a walk through precisely how CRC works and how we can prove that the different types of errors that it's able to detect

  • And then we'll get into how all of the math that is behind CRC can be implemented in just a few chips

  • In fact, not much more than we have here and we'll be able to do an incredibly robust error detection completely in hardware

  • You

In the last video we saw how

字幕と単語

ワンタップで英和辞典検索 単語をクリックすると、意味が表示されます

B1 中級

チェックサムとハミング距離 (Checksums and Hamming distance)

  • 4 0
    林宜悉 に公開 2021 年 01 月 14 日
動画の中の単語