Monday, August 4, 2014

CRC publication errata

Thanks to Prof. Berthold Gick at University of Applied Sciences in Koblenz Germany for finding a few bugs in my published CRC values.  (And also thanks for a very thorough second-check of results -- this is an essential part of scholarly publication that is not acknowledged as often as it should be!)

I have updated presentations and papers that I can find with the following corrections:

From my FAA presentation materials:
Polynomial      HD=2            HD=3      HD=4
0x80000d   |   16,777,212    |  5815     |  509               (length in bits at that HD)

From my 2002 paper:
Polynomial 0x992c1a4c has a maximal HD=6 payload of 32738 bits   (originally published as 32737)

From many publications the table of 16-bit and smaller CRCs:
11-bit polynomial 0x5d7  has a maximal HD=5 payload of 26 bits   (originally published as 25)

Some of the "best" polynomial recommendations have been updated. If you are unsure about a polynomial from a previous publication, you can look up its properties here:
and in the accompanying polynomial zoo (click on the polynomial size header in each column).

If anyone else spots an error please do let me know. This work happens time-available, but I do strive to eventually fix any bugs I know about.

No comments:

Post a Comment

Why To Avoid Hash Algorithms If What You Really Need Is A Checksum

Sometimes we hear that someone plans to use a hash function for fault detection instead of a checksum. This is probably not the best idea, b...