ECC edits

src/Advanced/Error-Correcting Codes/parts/02 hamming.tex

@@ -570,8 +570,45 @@ If we know which parity bits are inconsistent, how can we find where the error i
 \vfill
 
 \problem{}<generalize-hamming>
-Can you generalize this system for messages of 4, 64, or 256 bits?
+Generalize this system for messages of 4, 64, or 256 bits. \par
+\begin{itemize}
+	\item How does the resilience of this scheme change if we use a larger message size?
+	\item How does the efficiency of this scheme change if we send larger messages?
+\end{itemize}
+
+\vfill
+\pagebreak
+
+
+\definition{}
+A \textit{deletion} error occurs when one bit of the message is deleted. \par
+Likewise, an \textit{insertion} error consists of a random inserted bit. \par
+
+\definition{}
+A \textit{message stream} is an infinite string of binary digits.
+
+\problem{}
+Show that Hamming codes do not reliably detect bit deletions: \par
+\hint{
+	Create a 17-bit message whose first 16 bits are a valid Hamming block, \par
+	and which is still valid when a bit (chosen by you; not the $17^\text{th}$) is deleted.
+}
 
 \vfill
 
+\problem{}
+Convince yourself that Hamming codes cannot correct insertions. \par
+Then, create a 16-bit message that...
+\begin{itemize}
+	\item is a valid Hamming block, and
+	\item incorrectly "corrects" a single bit error when it encounters an insertion error.
+\end{itemize}
+
+\vfill
+
+
+As we have seen, Hamming codes effectively handle substitutions, but cannot reliably
+detect (or correct) insertions and deletions. Correcting those errors is a bit more difficult:
+if the number of bits we receive is variable, how can we split a stream into a series of messages? \par
+\note{This is a rhetorical question, which we'll discuss another day.}
 \pagebreak