Question

Hamming codes, used for error detection and correction, are useful for burst errors (where we could reasonably expect multiple adjacent bits to be incorrect); Reed-Solomon coding is more useful for random errors (where one can reasonable expect errors to be rare events).

A) True
B) False

Answer 1

The given statement is false. Hamming codes are most efficient for single-bit error correction rather than burst errors, whereas Reed-Solomon codes can effectively handle both burst and random errors.

Step-by-step explanation:

The statement in the question contains a critical misunderstanding about Hamming codes and Reed-Solomon codes. Hamming codes are indeed designed for error detection and correction, but they are most efficient for single-bit errors, not burst errors. Burst errors are when multiple bits in sequence are in error, and Hamming codes may not be able to correct such errors when multiple bits are affected. On the other hand, Reed-Solomon codes are particularly good at dealing with burst errors as well as random errors because they work on data symbols (which can represent multiple bits) rather than on individual bits. This means that a single error in a symbol (which could represent a burst error affecting multiple bits) can be corrected.