Talk:Mathematics of cyclic redundancy checks

bug report

The image below "Polynomial representations" contains an error, the "4" for the "Reverse" notation is in the wrong cell. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.144.35.215 (talk) 19:47, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

needs more in depth mathmatical concepts

This page needs to contain the more in depth mathmatical concepts from the CRC page so as to allow for easier reading.

Eyreland 22:49, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mathematics versus Implementations

Most of this page is a discussion of implementation issues, not mathematics. Implementation issues are important (they're probably the issues most people coming to the CRC page will be looking for), so they should probably be put where they're easier to find -- either on a page of their own, or back on the CRC page. Somebody fighting a CRC implementation problem will come to the main CRC page (cyclic redundancy check), and might not follow the link to Mathematics of CRCs, expecting it to be nothing but abstruse lecturing about GF(pⁿ).

What do you all think?

Peter 01:10, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strongly agreed. A lot of this material is what anyone trying to actually compute a CRC in software needs to know. 71.41.210.146 21:43, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. I came looking for the mathematics, not the software. Suggest new article, "computation of CRC's". Darktachyon 14:07, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Split algorithms into new article Computation of CRC. -- Regregex (talk) 13:33, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Misimplimentation

The algorithm for bytewise xoring (the common software implementation) seems to have some errors: the coefficient to be checked should be x^n, and the multiplication by x should be done after xoring with the generator polynomial if the tested bit is a 1 (tried examples by hand). Currently, the example seems to ignore the first bit of each byte. Anyone else concur? 128.252.37.8 22:20, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion (with reply) moved to Talk:Computation of CRC. -- Regregex (talk) 13:39, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Possible error

In the sentence "In the above equations, x 3 + x 2 + x {\displaystyle x^{3}+x^{2}+x} x^3 + x^2 + x represents the original message bits 111", shouldn't the binary form be 1110? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.129.131.119 (talk) 10:37, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

link to

would be fair is this page could be linked to "polynomial code" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polynomial_code as well https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyclic_redundancy_check; also have the same notation than those. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Woreno (talk • contribs) 15:31, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]