-1
$\begingroup$

I am wondering whether you could still call a code something that, if transmitting, only transmits one symbol. Or does the formal definition of code require 2 or more symbols? (and would the answer change if that symbol can have different intensities, so perhaps having 2 or more intensities makes this a code?) thanks!

$\endgroup$

closed as off-topic by Emil Jeřábek supports Monica, Kaveh, Mohammad Al-Turkistany, Hsien-Chih Chang 張顯之, Lev Reyzin Aug 1 '17 at 17:06

This question appears to be off-topic. The users who voted to close gave this specific reason:

  • "Your question does not appear to be a research-level question in theoretical computer science. For more information about the scope, please see help center. Your question might be suitable for Computer Science which has a broader scope." – Emil Jeřábek supports Monica, Kaveh, Mohammad Al-Turkistany, Hsien-Chih Chang 張顯之, Lev Reyzin
If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question.

0
$\begingroup$

The definition in the theory of codes does not require the alphabet to have two or more symbols, see for example the textbook by Berstel and Perrin. Over a one-letter alphabet the only codes are exactly the one-word sets. So mathematically this is not as interesting as bigger alphabets.

If your symbol can have different intensities, the most obvious way of formally modelling is to use different symbols for the different intensities. With this you would end up with a code over a bigger alphabet.

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ thanks Peter. do you have a specific part of that book in mind? $\endgroup$ – magnolia1 Jul 22 '17 at 13:04
  • $\begingroup$ The definition of code is on page 37, @matteoeoeo. $\endgroup$ – Peter Leupold Jul 22 '17 at 13:34

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.