Talk:Gilbert–Varshamov bound

1

$k$ seems to be already bound in the second inequality and therefore "where $k$ is the greatest integer for which..." is nonsense.

-- Fixed, or at least changed to a form equivalent to the one given in http://www.math.mtu.edu/~jbierbra/HOMEZEUGS/ygv2.ps (and hopefully correct). Darij (talk) 22:40, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

2

in the case of prime k, isn't the numerator should be q^(n-1)? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.69.139.230 (talk) 11:14, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Isn't this the Hamming bound

Is it just my imagination, or is this actually the Hamming bound?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.192.234.93 (talk) 12:36, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Merger proposal

I propose to merge Gilbert–Varshamov bound for linear codes into Gilbert–Varshamov bound. I think that the content in the Gilbert–Varshamov bound for linear codes article can easily be explained in the context of Gilbert–Varshamov bound, and the Gilbert–Varshamov bound article is of a reasonable size that the merging of Foo will not cause any problems as far as article size is concerned. Saung Tadashi (talk) 05:57, 5 November 2019 (UTC)