Proceedings ArticleDOI

# Multinomial representation of majority logic coding

31 Oct 2005-pp 421-424

TL;DR: These representations are derived for majority logic operations on bipolar binary data in terms of the readily computed lower Cholesky factor of Pascal matrices of order n for codes of block length n.
Abstract: Multinomial representations are derived for majority logic operations on bipolar binary data. The coefficients are given simply in terms of the readily computed lower Cholesky factor of Pascal matrices of order n for codes of block length n
Topics: , Cholesky decomposition (53%), Binary data (52%)

## Summary (2 min read)

### Introduction

• Majority voting on binary data is the basis of certain nonlinear block coding schemes in communication systems , especially in the case where, extremely low power radio wave communications is desired .
• The majority logic operation can be a classic sign function of the sum of the binary data, as studied in the earlier literature known to us.
• Perhaps more usefully, the authors also give a theory for what they term here sign± functions.
• The approach extends to other nonlinear functions of the sum of binary data, such as to sigmoidal functions used in artificial neural networks.
• The coefficients of the multinomial expansion are linear in what the authors call a generalized Pascal matrix, which can be factored in terms of the lower triangular Cholesky factor, denoted here Pn, of a Pascal matrix of order n.

### II. THE PASCAL MATRIX AND A MULTINOMIAL EXPANSION

• The authors introduce background material on classical results in order to set up notation for the main results of the following sections.
• The authors new results concern nonlinear operations that are invariant of any ordering in the data, such as functions of ∑n i=1 ai,∏n i=1 ai, or of ∏n i=1(1+ai).
• The authors focus is on majority logic functions involving sign operations on sums of partial products ai, which map one-to-one to the data vector.
• The resulting representations are termed multinomial representations.

### A. Multinomial representation for majority logic

• 1) Nonlinear functions and majority logic: Consider the sign function definition.
• The majority logic operation on this n-block of data is simply sign∗( ∑n 1 ai), where the authors have used sign∗ to denote either sign, sign+ or sign−.
• The latter two options can be used if the output of the logic operation is constrained to be also bipolar binary.
• The selection of the coefficients and their properties is the study of this paper.
• The earlier work has given specific formulas for the coefficients ρ0, ρ1, ρn of (3) in terms of permutation operations nCi = n! i!(n−i)! , at least for the case of the classic sign function.

### B. The lower Cholesky factor of the Pascal matrix

• The well known Pascal matrix, is a lower Cholesky factor of the original Pascal matrix.

### III. MULTINOMIAL COEFFICIENTS

• (6) Now consider the multinomial (3) for all possible polar binary sequences {a1, a2, · · · , an}.

### B. Coefficients via the generalized Pascal matrix

• As already noted, the multinomial (3), for each possible a1, a2, · · · , an selection, is invariant of the ordering of the ai, and there are then but n+1 possible multinomials.
• This result follows by induction arguments.
• The authors work with matrices in lower triangular form.
• To proceed with the lemma proof, a decomposition lemma is now stated and proved, Lemma 3.3.
• It is necessary to exploit the Pascal equations which are inherent in the Pascal matrix Pn construction, and suitably adjusted for the ‘flipped’ version Fn. Further details are omitted.

### D. Coefficients from columns of the generalized Pascal matrix

• The above Lemmas 3.1, 3.2 together give their main result stated as a theorem.
• The multinomial representation of the sign∗ function of (3) has coefficients ρ satisfying the linear equations (11), restated as, ρ = 2−nRn+1s∗. (17) where Rn, the generalized Pascal matrix, is defined recursively in (8), and (10), and satisfies (13) and (16).
• This result means that matrix inverses are avoided in calculating coefficients.
• Specific relationships between the coefficients are clear from the tables and can be proved by induction arguments, as follows.
• It is worth pointing out that although this matrix is not orthogonal, induction arguments show that all odd rows are orthogonal to all even rows, so that RnR′n has zero i, j entries where i is even and j is odd.

### IV. CONCLUSIONS

• Majority logic coding for communication systems has attractive advantages in terms of the simplicity of the decoding.
• The majority logic operations involved are highly nonlinear, so there has been a paucity of theory for developing codes and guaranteeing properties.
• A key step in this direction, presented in this paper, has been the generation of an explicit formula for the multinomial representation of the various sign∗ operations involved in majority logic.
• The formula is readily calculated in terms of binomial coefficients, appearing in a proposed generalized Pascal matrix.
• The results are more complete than hitherto given for the case of sign, and are new for the sign± case.

Did you find this useful? Give us your feedback

Content maybe subject to copyright    Report Edith Cowan University Edith Cowan University
Research Online Research Online
ECU Publications Pre. 2011
2005
Multinomial Representation of Majority Logic Coding Multinomial Representation of Majority Logic Coding
John B. Moore
Australian National University
Keng T. Tan
Edith Cowan University
Follow this and additional works at: https://ro.ecu.edu.au/ecuworks
Part of the Computer Sciences Commons
10.1109/ISIT.2005.1523368
This is an Author's Accepted Manuscript of: Moore, J.B., & Tan, K.T. (2005). Multinomial Representation of Majority
Logic Coding. Proceedings of IEEE International Symposium on Information Theory. ISIT 2005 (pp. 421-424).
Adelaide, Australia. IEEE. Available here
© 2005 IEEE. Personal use of this material is permitted. Permission from IEEE must be obtained for all other uses,
in any current or future media, including reprinting/republishing this material for advertising or promotional
purposes, creating new collective works, for resale or redistribution to servers or lists, or reuse of any copyrighted
component of this work in other works.
This Conference Proceeding is posted at Research Online.
https://ro.ecu.edu.au/ecuworks/2757 Multinomial Representation of Majority Logic
Coding
John B. Moore
Research School of Info. Sci. & Eng.
Australian National University
Canberra ACT 0200, Australia
Email: john.moore@anu.edu.au
Keng T. Tan
School of Computer and Information Science
Edith Cowan University
Mount Lawley WA 6050, Australia
Email: a.tan@ecu.edu.au
Abstract Multinomial representations are derived for major-
ity logic operations on bipolar binary data. The coefﬁcients are
given simply in terms of the readily computed lower Cholesky
factor of Pascal Matrices of order n for codes of block length n.
I. INTRODUCTION
Majority voting on binary data is the basis of certain non-
linear block coding schemes in communication systems ,
especially in the case where, extremely low power radio wave
communications is desired . The majority logic operation
is used in both the coding and decoding operations. Because
of the nonlinearity of the operation, there is difﬁculty in
predicting system performance, or seeing how to improve
system performance. Our view is that a crucial tool in this task
is a multinomial representation of the majority logic operation.
A multinomial expansion for majority logic has been par-
tially studied in , , and the results applied in various
communication contexts. General formulas for the ﬁrst and
last coefﬁcients in the expansion are stated, and for bipolar
binary vectors of length n, it is claimed that the even numbered
coefﬁcients are zero for n even, but we know of no sources
which give other coefﬁcients.
Here, we give a complete theory for the multinomial repre-
sentations of majority logic operations on bipolar binary data.
The majority logic operation can be a classic sign function of
the sum of the binary data, as studied in the earlier literature
known to us. Perhaps more usefully, we also give a theory for
what we term here sign
±
functions. These are sign operations
where an output of 0 is replaced by ±1. The approach extends
to other nonlinear functions of the sum of binary data, such
as to sigmoidal functions used in artiﬁcial neural networks. It
also extends to arbitrary nonlinear functions of bipolar binary
data vectors that are invariant of the order of the data within
the vector.
The coefﬁcients of the multinomial expansion are linear
in what we call a generalized Pascal matrix, which can be
factored in terms of the lower triangular Cholesky factor,
denoted here P
n
,ofaPascal matrix of order n.The‘new
results are generalizations of the classical results. It would not
be surprising if at least some of the results were known by
Pascal, but the motivation for deriving them, or highlighting
them, is coming from applications of nonlinear coding for next
generation wireless communications.
In Section II, the new results on multinomial expansions
of majority logic functions are derived. In Section III, these
results are applied to majority logic based nonlinear block
coding. Conclusions are drawn in Section VI.
II. T
HE PASCAL MATRIX AND A MULTINOMIAL EXPANSION
In this section, we introduce background material on clas-
sical results in order to set up notation for the main results of
the following sections.
Our results concern nonlinear operations on a data n-vector
a =[a
1
,a
2
,...,a
n
]
with a
i
∈{+1, 1}. Now any nonlinear
function of a belongs to a ﬁnite discrete set of no more than
2
n
elements. Indeed, such functions are linear in an indicator
2
n
-vector ∈{e
1
,e
2
,...,e
2n
},wheree
i
is a zero 2
n
-vector
save that the i
th
element is unity.
Our new results concern nonlinear operations that are invari-
ant of any ordering in the data, such as functions of
n
i=1
a
i
,
n
i=1
a
i
,orof
n
i=1
(1+a
i
). In this case, the functions belong
to a discrete set of at most n +1 elements.
Our focus is on (nonlinear) majority logic functions involv-
ing sign operations on sums of partial products a
i
,whichmap
one-to-one to the data vector. The resulting representations are
termed multinomial representations.
A. Multinomial representation for majority logic
1) Nonlinear functions and majority logic: Consider the
sign function deﬁnition.
sign(x):=
1ifx>0
0ifx =0
1ifx<0
. (1)
Let us also introduce derivative deﬁnitions, denoted sign
+
and
sign
as
sign
±
(x):=
1ifx>0
±1ifx =0
1ifx<0
. (2)
Consider now a set of n bipolar binary digits
{a
1
,a
2
,...,a
n
}, that is where a
i
∈{+1, 1}.The
majority logic operation on this n-block of data is simply
sign
(
n
1
a
i
), where we have used sign
to denote either
sign, sign
+
or sign
. The latter two options can be used if the output of the logic operation is constrained to be also
bipolar binary.
2) Multinomial representation: Early literature ,
presents a multinomial representation for the majority logic
sign operation, which we here also mildly generalize as
sign
n
i=1
a
i
= ρ
0
+ ρ
1
n
i=1
a
i
+ ρ
2
all i>j
a
i
a
j
+ρ
3
all i>j>k
a
i
a
j
a
k
+ ···+ ρ
n
n
i=1
a
i
. (3)
for suitable selections of coefﬁcients ρ := [ρ
0
1
,...,ρ
n
]
,
which will depend on which of the sign operations is used.
The selection of the coefﬁcients and their properties is the
study of this paper.
Of course, the expansion of the nonlinear function
n
i=1
(1+
a
i
) has such an expansion as the right hand side of (3) with
coefﬁcients ρ =[1 1...1]. The mapping from the set {a
i
}
to the set of the sums of products in (3) via the coefﬁcients
of the ρ
i
, is known to be one to one.
The earlier work has given speciﬁc formulas for the coef-
ﬁcients ρ
0
1
n
of (3) in terms of permutation operations
n
C
i
=
n!
i!(ni)!
, at least for the case of the classic sign
function. It is also noted in the early work that in this case
ρ
i
=0for n, i even, but other coefﬁcients have not been
studied to our knowledge.
In our applications of such expansions, it is important to
have readily calculated coefﬁcients for all the coefﬁcients ρ
i
,
and to see relationships between them in order to understand
experimentally observed relationships in majority logic coding
for communication systems.
In order to proceed, we ﬁrst review relevant results of the
Pascal matrix.
B. The lower Cholesky factor of the Pascal matrix
The well known (second) Pascal matrix, is a lower
Cholesky factor of the original (ﬁrst) Pascal matrix. We will
refer to this (second) Pascal matrix simply as the P ascal
matrix, and use the notation P
n
=(p
i,j
n
) for such an n × n
matrix. Its elements, for i, j =1, 2,...,n are deﬁned in terms
of the binomial coefﬁcients , so that the i, j element for i j
is
p
i,j
n
=
(1)
j1
.
i1
C
j1
(4)
:=
(1)
j1
(i 1)!
(j 1)!(i j)!
, for i j.
The key property which we exploit subsequently is that P
n
is involutary in that
P
n
= P
1
n
,P
n
P
n
= I
n
. (5)
III. M
ULTINOMIAL COEFFICIENTS
To lead into the derivations of our main results, consider
the polynomials (s 1)
i
for i =0, 1, 2,...,n for some
nonnegative integer n and scalar s, organized as
(s 1)
0
s
n
(s 1)
1
s
n1
·
·
(s 1)
n
s
0
= P
n+1
s
n
s
n1
·
·
s
0
. (6)
Now consider the multinomial (3) for all possible polar
binary sequences {a
1
,a
2
, ··· ,a
n
}. Clearly, the expansion is
invariant of the ordering of the a
i
, so that there are only n +1
selections, namely where there are k =0, 1, 2, ··· ,n values
of a
i
=1, with correspondingly n k =0, 1, ··· ,n values
of a
i
= 1. Indeed the terms involving sums of products of
the a
i
in (3) are given, for each k =0, 1, 2, ··· ,n,asthe
coefﬁcients of the expansion (s 1)
k
(s +1)
nk
.
A. A generalized Pascal matrix
A useful generalization of (6) is then
(s 1)
0
(s +1)
n
(s 1)
1
(s +1)
n1
·
·
(s 1)
n
(s +1)
0
= R
n+1
s
n
s
n1
·
·
s
0
(7)
for some readily calculated (n +1)× (n +1) matrix R
n+1
:=
(r
i,j
) consisting of elements r
i,j
, and termed here a general-
ized Pascal matrix. In particular, the i
th
row of R
n+1
consists
of the sums of products of the a
i
in (3), for k values of a
i
=1,
with correspondingly n k values of a
i
= 1, and are the
coefﬁcients of the polynomial (s 1)
k
(s +1)
nk
.
For reference, the cases for n =1, 2 are spelt out as,
R
2
=
11
1 1
(8)
R
3
=
12 1
101
1 21
(9)
A recursive relationship between the elements of R
k+1
,and
that of R
k
, being a generalization of Pascal’s equations, are
given for k =2, 3, 4, ··· ,n, initialized by (8), as
r
i,1
k+1
:= 1, for i =1, 2, ··· ,k+1;
r
i,j
k+1
:= r
i,j
k
+ r
i,j1
k
, for j =2, 3, ··· ,k+1;
r
k+1,j
k+1
:= r
k,j
k
r
k,j1
k
, for j =2, 3, ··· ,k+1.
(10)
This result is proved in a straightforward manner by induction,
and is not spelt out here.
B. Coefﬁcients via the generalized Pascal matrix
As already noted, the multinomial (3), for each possible
a
1
,a
2
, ··· ,a
n
selection, is invariant of the ordering of the a
i
,
and there are then but n +1 possible multinomials. These can then be organized as,
s
:=
sign
(n)
sign
(n 2)
·
·
sign
(n n)
= R
n+1
ρ
0
ρ
1
·
·
ρ
n
= R
n+1
ρ.
(11)
This relationship means that the desired coefﬁcients are the
solutions of a linear equation as emphasized in the lemma.
Lemma 3.1 The multinomial representation of the sign
function of (3) has coefﬁcients ρ satisfying the linear equations
(11), restated as,
R
n+1
ρ = s
, (12)
where R
n
, the generalized Pascal matrix, is deﬁned recursively
in (8), and (10).
C. Inverse and decomposition of the generalized Pascal matrix
The nature of the inverse of R
n+1
now assumes importance.
We next develop our second main result, namely that R
n
has
a factorization in terms of the Pascal matrix P
n
, and inherits
the involutary property to within a scaling. In particular, we
claim,
Lemma 3.2 The generalized Pascal matrix R
n
, as deﬁned
recursively in (8), and (10), has the scaled involutary property
R
2
n
=2
n1
I
n
,R
1
n
=2
1n
R
n
. (13)
Proof: This result follows by induction arguments. We work
with matrices in lower triangular form. First deﬁne F
n
as the
matrix P
n
ﬂipped both left to right and top to bottom. In
obvious notation, we write,
F
n
:= ﬂip(P
n
), or f
i,j
n
= p
ni,nj
n
. (14)
Also, deﬁne diagonal matrices, in obvious notation, as
D
n
:= diag{2
0
, 2
1
, 2
2
, ··· , 2
n1
},S
n
:= diag(P
n
). (15)
To proceed with the lemma proof, a decomposition lemma
is now stated and proved,
Lemma 3.3 The generalized Pascal matrix R
n
, as deﬁned
recursively in (8) and (10), has the decomposition in terms of
triangular and diagonal matrices as
R
n
=2
n1
S
n
F
n
D
1
n
P
n
= P
n
D
n
F
n
S
n
. (16)
Proof: This lemma result follows by induction, which is
relatively straightforward because only upper or lower tri-
angular matrices are involved. Our approach is guided by
keeping in mind the connection of the matrix elements with
polynomial coefﬁcients. Thus an equivalent result to (16) is to
post-multiply R
n
by the vector [s
n1
s
n2
...s
0
]
and apply
both (6) and (7) so that,
(s 1)
0
(s +1)
n1
(s 1)
1
(s +1)
n2
·
·
(s 1)
n1
(s +1)
0
= P
n
2
0
(s +1)
n
2
1
(s +1)
n1
·
·
2
n1
(s +1)
0
,
= F
n
(2s)
n1
(s +1)
0
(2s)
n2
(s +1)
1
·
·
(2s)
0
(s 1)
n1
.
These equations are now in a form that they can be veriﬁed
by straightforward induction arguments. The pattern of the
argument becomes clear in passing from n =1to n =2,and
n =2to n =3, so that passing from n to n +1 is then
straightforward. It is necessary to exploit the Pascal equations
which are inherent in the Pascal matrix P
n
construction, and
suitably adjusted for the ‘ﬂipped’ version F
n
. Further details
are omitted.
Proof: (Continuation of Proof for Lemma III.2) The proof
of (13) follows from (16) by substitution and noting in turn
that S
n
,P
n
,F
n
are each readily veriﬁed as involutary. Thus,
(R
n
)(R
n
)=(P
n
D
n
F
n
S
n
)(2
n1
S
n
F
n
D
1
n
P
n
),
=2
n1
P
n
D
n
F
n
F
n
D
1
n
P
n
,
=2
n1
P
n
D
n
D
1
n
P
n
,
=2
n1
P
n
P
n
,
=2
n1
I
n
.
D. Coefﬁcients from columns of the generalized Pascal matrix
The above Lemmas 3.1, 3.2 together give our main result
stated as a theorem.
Theorem 3.1 The multinomial representation of the sign
function of (3) has coefﬁcients ρ satisfying the linear equations
(11), restated as,
ρ =2
n
R
n+1
s
. (17)
where R
n
, the generalized Pascal matrix, is deﬁned recursively
in (8), and (10), and satisﬁes (13) and (16).
This result means that matrix inverses are avoided in calcu-
lating coefﬁcients. This becomes signiﬁcant for large n.
This result for sign
(sum) functions generalizes trivially
to any nonlinear function f(a
1
,a
2
,...,a
n
) which is invariant
of the ordering of the a
i
.Thes
vector is then replaced by a
vector with j
th
element f(1, 1,...,1, 1, 1,...,1),where
there are j elements of the data set being 1,andn j unity
elements.
For completeness, we tabulate the coefﬁcients for low n,
and point out certain properties which can be established by
induction. n=2 n=3 n=4 n=5 n=6 n=7 n=8
ρ
0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0
ρ
1
1
2
1
2
3
8
3
8
5
16
5
16
35
128
ρ
2
0 0 0 0 0 0 0
ρ
3
0
1
2
1
8
1
8
5
80
5
80
5
128
ρ
4
0 0 0 0 0 0 0
ρ
5
0 0 0
3
8
5
80
5
80
3
128
ρ
6
0 0 0 0 0 0 0
ρ
7
0 0 0 0 0
5
16
5
128
TABLE I
T
ABLE FOR sign FUNCTION MULTINOMIAL COEFFICIENTS.
n=2 n=3 n=4 n=5 n=6 n=7 n=8
ρ
0
1
2
0
3
8
0
5
16
0
35
128
ρ
1
1
2
1
2
3
8
3
8
5
16
5
16
35
128
ρ
2
1
2
0
1
8
0
5
80
0
5
128
ρ
3
0
1
2
1
8
1
8
5
80
5
80
5
128
ρ
4
0 0
3
8
0
5
80
0
3
128
ρ
5
0 0 0
3
8
5
80
5
80
3
128
ρ
6
0 0 0 0
5
16
0
5
128
ρ
7
0 0 0 0 0
5
16
5
128
ρ
8
0 0 0 0 0 0
35
128
TABLE II
T
ABLE FOR sign
±
FUNCTION MULTINOMIAL COEFFICIENTS.
Speciﬁc relationships between the coefﬁcients are clear from
the tables and can be proved by induction arguments, as
follows. For Table I, for the sign operation,
ρ
(n)
i
=0, for i =0, 1, 3,...and all n,
ρ
(n)
i
= ρ
(n1)
i
, for all i and n =3, 5, 7,...,
sign(ρ
(n)
i
)=1, for all n and i =3, 7, 11,...,
sign(ρ
(n)
i
)=1, for all n and i =1, 5, 9 ..., (18)
and for Table II, for the sign
±
operation,
ρ
(n)
i
=0, for i =0, 2, 4,...,
and n =3, 5, 7,...,
ρ
(n)
i
= ρ
(n1)
i
, for i =1, 3, 5,...,
and n = i +2,i+4,i+6,...,
ρ
(n)
i
= ρ
(n)
i1
, for i =1, 3, 5,...,
and n = i +1,i+3,i+5,...,
sign(ρ
(n)
i
)=+1, for all n
and i =0, 1, 4, 5, 8, 9 ...,
sign(ρ
(n)
i
)=1, for all n
and i =2, 3, 6, 7, 10, 11,...,
(19)
There is also symmetry in the coefﬁcients for each odd n.
Indeed for this case the coefﬁcients for sign and sign
±
are
identical (since then sign
±
sign).
We see that Table II can be constructed using these various
properties and the entries in Table I. Moreover, all coefﬁcients
can be constructed from the subset of Table I, namely the ρ
n
i
for i, n odd, i<n/2.
It is readily seen that for n>2, and either coefﬁcient
selection, in obvious notation, then
n+1
i=1
P
n+1
(n, i)ρ
(n)
i1
=
1,and
n+1
i=1
P
n+1
(n 1,i)ρ
(n)
i1
=0. There are other
products of the rows of P
n
and ρ vectors which are also 0
or 1 not spelt out.
The generalized Pascal Matrix is the key to the coefﬁcients.
It is worth pointing out that although this matrix is not
orthogonal, induction arguments show that all odd rows are
orthogonal to all even rows, so that R
n
R
n
has zero i, j entries
where i is even and j is odd.
IV. C
ONCLUSIONS
Majority logic coding for communication systems has at-
tractive advantages in terms of the simplicity of the decoding.
This is achieved at the expense of optimality. The majority
logic operations involved are highly nonlinear, so there has
been a paucity of theory for developing codes and guaranteeing
properties.
A key step in this direction, presented in this paper, has
been the generation of an explicit formula for the multinomial
representation of the various sign
operations involved in
majority logic. The formula is readily calculated in terms
of binomial coefﬁcients, appearing in a proposed generalized
Pascal matrix. A factorization of this matrix, in terms of a
lower Cholesky factor of the original Pascal matrix, turns out
to simplify the proof and derivation of the coefﬁcients. The
results are more complete than hitherto given for the case of
sign, and are new for the sign
±
case.
V. A
CKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Thanks to GO-CDMA Ltd. of Hong Kong SAR, China, for
the use of their intellectual properties in this work.
John’s work is supported in part by the ARC discovery
grants A0010582, DP0450539, and in part by the National ICT
Australia (NICTA), which is funded by the Australian Gov-
ernment Backing Australia’s Ability Initiative in part through
the Australian Research Council.
R
EFERENCES
 T. Maseng Performance Analysis of a Majority Logic Multiplex System
IEEE Transactions on Communications, vol. COM-28, no. 9, September
1980.
 A. Sugiura and M. Inatsu An amplitude limiting CDM by using
majority logic. IEICE Transactions on Fundamentals of Electronics,
Communications and Computer Sciences, vol. E80-A, no. 2, pp. 346-
348, Feb. 1997.
 V.P. Ipatov, Y.A. Kolomensky, and R.N. Shabalin Reception of Majority-
Multiplexed Signals. Radio Engineering and Electronic Physics, vol. 20,
no. 4, pp.121-124, 1975.
 R.C. Titsworth Application of the Boolean for the Design of a Multi-
Channel Telemetric System (in Russian). Zarubezhnaya Radioelektron-
ika, 8, 1964.
##### Citations
More filters

Journal ArticleDOI
Abstract: John Moore was born in Lungling, China on 3 April 1941 and died in Canberra on 19 January 2013. He was an electrical engineer who spent most of his distinguished career at the University of Newcastle and the Australian National University following industrial experience and graduate education in Silicon Valley, California. He was a Fellow of the Institute of Electrical and Electronic Engineers, the Australian Academy of Science and the Australian Academy of Technological Sciences and Engineering, achieving all honours at a comparatively early age, and was recognized principally for his contributions to the field of control systems.

3 citations

More filters

Journal Article

5 citations

### "Multinomial representation of major..." refers background in this paper

• ...INTRODUCTION Majority voting on binary data is the basis of certain nonlinear block coding schemes in communication systems , especially in the case where, extremely low power radio wave communications is desired ....

[...]

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: The basic MLM principle is extended to handle the combining of traffic channels with different bit rates and values of performance deterioration due to noise are compared with experimental results and found to be m close agreement.
Abstract: The code division multiplexing (CDM) of digitally modulated baseband signals is normally referred to as majority logic multiplexing (MLM). The employment of MLM techniques in spread spectrum multiple access (SSMA) systems is especially attractive because it allows many different types of baseband channels to be easily combined. The traffic level can be gradually reduced to obtain a desired increase in processing gain, without affecting the active channels' share of the transmitter power. The code integrity and the processing gain of the SSMA equipment can be preserved by suitable design. This paper contains a general performance analysis of an MLM system that uses random codes. The basic MLM principle is extended to handle the combining of traffic channels with different bit rates. Calculated values of performance deterioration due to noise are compared with experimental results and found to be m close agreement.

3 citations

### "Multinomial representation of major..." refers background in this paper

• ...INTRODUCTION Majority voting on binary data is the basis of certain nonlinear block coding schemes in communication systems , especially in the case where, extremely low power radio wave communications is desired ....

[...]

##### Network Information
###### Related Papers (5)
30 May 1994

Masahiro Fujita, J. Chih-Yuan Yang +3 more

10 Dec 2012

Pauli Miettinen

01 Nov 1998

Shin-ichi Minato, G. De Micheli

27 May 1991

P.W. Besslich, M.W. Riege

##### Performance
###### Metrics
No. of citations received by the Paper in previous years
YearCitations
20141