Paper detail

Some Comments on the Strong Simplex Conjecture

In the disproof of the Strong Simplex Conjecture presented in [Steiner, 1994], a counterexample signal set was found that has higher average probability of correct optimal decoding than the corresponding regular simplex signal set, when compared at small values of the signal-to-noise ratio. The latter was defined as the quotient of average signal energy and average noise power. In this paper, it is shown that this interpretation of the signal-to-noise ratio is inappropriate for a comparison of signal sets, since it leads to a contradiction with the Channel Coding Theorem. A modified counterexample signal set is proposed and examined using the classical interpretation of the signal-to-noise ratio, i.e., as the quotient of average signal energy and average noise energy. This signal set outperforms the regular simplex signal set for small signal-to-noise ratios without contradicting the Channel Coding Theorem, hence the Strong Simplex Conjecture remains proven false.

preprint2012arXivOpen access

Signal facts

What is known right now

Open access3 authors2 topics

Next steps

Decide what to do with this paper

Use like or dislike for the fast social read. The more specific scholarly feedback stays available below when needed.

Log in to curate

Reading frame

Keep the important context close to the paper

Keep the important signals around this paper in one place: votes, save state, collection context, reviews and the metadata you need before deciding what to do next.

Institutions

Add specific reaction

Move through the context

Research map

Open full explorer

Move through nearby people, institutions, topics and adjacent work without leaving the paper page.

Building this map preview

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Structured reviews

0 review(s)

ContributeLeave structured feedbackUse the review template when you have a concrete strength, concern or method question.Open review form

No structured reviews yet. High-signal critique starts here.

Work discussion

0 comment(s)

DiscussAdd a high-signal commentKeep quick notes, caveats and replication pointers separate from formal reviews.Open comment form

No discussion yet. The first strong comment sets the tone.