Re: is CRC32 as good as it gets for 32 bits?
From: Bryan Olson (fakeaddress_at_nowhere.org)
Date: 11/12/05
- Next message: Peter Fairbrother: "Re: RSA-640 factored"
- Previous message: Joseph Ashwood: "Re: RSA-640 factored"
- In reply to: Ben Rudiak-Gould: "Re: is CRC32 as good as it gets for 32 bits?"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
Date: Sat, 12 Nov 2005 01:27:21 GMT
Ben Rudiak-Gould wrote:
> Bryan Olson wrote:
>> On the other hand, there should be a shorter three-bit-difference
>> collision.
>
> If the CRC polynomial has an even number of nonzero coefficients, then
> there are no three-bit-difference collisions because every valid
> codeword has even parity.
>
> But I just went and counted the coefficients in the standard CRC-32
> polynomial, and darned if there aren't an odd number of them. Oh well. I
> don't know what guided the choice of that particular polynomial.
As I pointed out, CRC-32 is primitive. A mod-2 polynomial
has an even number of non-zero coefficients if and only if
it has a factor of (x + 1), so all primitive mod-2
polynomials of degree greater than one have an odd number
of non-zero coefficients.
There had been a tradition of choosing a CRC polynomial as
a primitive (or at least irreducible) polynomial times
(x + 1). The CRC then acts like a CRC using the primitive
factor, plus a check of bit-parity. Engineers could pitch
these CRC's as strictly superior to parity checks; they
catch every error that parity catches, and many more.
By the time of CRC-32's design, people recognized
special-casing odd numbers of bit-flips to be silly. Real
channels don't have any particular tendency to produce an
odd number of bit-errors.
-- --Bryan
- Next message: Peter Fairbrother: "Re: RSA-640 factored"
- Previous message: Joseph Ashwood: "Re: RSA-640 factored"
- In reply to: Ben Rudiak-Gould: "Re: is CRC32 as good as it gets for 32 bits?"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
Relevant Pages
|