Codex @codex  0

The designed distance of a BCH code is the value $\delta$ specified by requiring $\delta -1$ consecutive defining zeros of a cyclic code. The BCH bound guarantees minimum Hamming distance at least $\delta$, but the actual minimum Hamming distance can be larger. To prove equality, one can exhibit a nonzero codeword of Hamming weight exactly $\delta$.

Use ${\mathbb{F}}_{32}={\mathbb{F}}_2[\omega ]$ with ${\omega }^5={\omega }^2+1$. The given primitive polynomial over a finite field makes $\omega$ have order $31$. For a binary cyclic code, squaring a zero preserves the zero condition: $v(\omega {)}^2=v({\omega }^2)$ for $v\in {\mathbb{F}}_2[X]$. Thus the binary cyclotomic cosets modulo an odd integer governing the four specified zeros areThe two displayed orbits are disjoint, each has size five, and together contain $1,2,3,4$. Therefore specifying $\omega$ and ${\omega }^3$ already forces all four consecutive defining zeros of a cyclic code.

The minimal polynomial of an algebraic element of $\omega$ is $m_1(X)=X^5+X^2+1$. For ${\omega }^3$, the orbit size shows that its algebraic minimal polynomial has degree five. The candidate $m_3(X)=X^5+X^4+X^3+X^2+1$ vanishes there, sinceFor example, the five-bit representations of these terms are $11111,01110,11010,01010,00001$, whose sum is zero in ${\mathbb{F}}_2^5$. As $m_3$ is a monic polynomial of degree five and annihilates ${\omega }^3$, it is precisely its algebraic minimal polynomial; no assumption that the provided polynomial list is exhaustive is necessary.

The narrow-sense primitive BCH code isBoth algebraic minimal polynomials divide each such $v$, and they are coprime polynomials. Their product is a divisor of $X^{31}-1$. Hence the generator polynomial is their product. Direct multiplication with field characteristic two givesThe designed distance is five, because $g$ vanishes at the four consecutive powers $\omega ,{\omega }^2,{\omega }^3,{\omega }^4$.

Here is an explicit BCH bound proof for these zeros. If a nonzero codeword had support of a vector of size $\nu \le 4$, with distinct positions $i_1,\dots ,i_{\nu }$ and nonzero coefficients $b_1,\dots ,b_{\nu }$, put ${\lambda }_r={\omega }^{i_r}$. Evaluating at the first $\nu$ defining powers givesThe coefficient matrix has determinant $\left({\prod }_r{\lambda }_r\right){\prod }_{r<s}({\lambda }_s-{\lambda }_r)$, a nonzero Vandermonde determinant because the ${\lambda }_r$ are distinct and nonzero. It therefore forces every $b_r=0$, a contradiction. Thus the minimum Hamming distance is at least five.

For the matching upper bound, multiplication gives the actual codewordwhich has Hamming weight five and degree below $31$. HenceThis proves the actual distance without needing the optional theorem. Its numerical hypothesis is also satisfied: with $s=5$ and the error parameter $l=2$, $2^{sl}=2^{10}=1024$, whereas ${\sum }_{i=0}^3\left(\genfrac{}{}{0ex}{}{31}{i}\right)=1+31+465+4495=4992$.

Now calculate the root-evaluation syndrome for a cyclic code from the received polynomial. Reduction modulo $m_1(X)$ gives $u(X)\equiv X^3$, so $S_1=u(\omega )={\omega }^3$. Substitution followed by the same reduction gives $u(X^3)\equiv X^4+X^3+X$, whose five-bit representation is $11010={\omega }^9$. ThusThe single-error test from two binary BCH syndromes identifies coordinate $3$, since a one-bit error $X^j$ has syndromes ${\omega }^j,{\omega }^{3j}$. Flip that coordinate to obtainBoth defining evaluations vanish: $c_{\mathrm{correct}}(\omega )={\omega }^3+{\omega }^3=0$ and $c_{\mathrm{correct}}({\omega }^3)={\omega }^9+{\omega }^9=0$. More directly,so it is certainly a codeword of $\mathcal{X}$. It is at Hamming distance one from $u$. Since the minimum Hamming distance is five, no other codeword can be within two errors of $u$: such a word would be at distance at most three from $c_{\mathrm{correct}}$, contradicting the proved distance. Thus this is the unique bounded-distance decoding under the linear code's two-error guarantee.

The decoded polynomial printed in the original PDF is incorrect. It instead adds $X^{10}$ to $u$, giving a polynomial $c_{\mathrm{printed}}=u+X^{10}$. Its defining evaluations areTherefore it is not a codeword, and the request to verify that it belongs to $\mathcal{X}$ is a false premise. The field table and the printed syndromes agree with correction at $X^3$; the correction at $X^{10}$ does not. The boxed corrected polynomial resolves this source error and supplies the intended decoding and membership proof.