Talk:Dirty paper coding

Untitled

There are many ways to describe the capacity of DPC. But which is the best now?

Do you mean the capacity of DPC depending on how to implement or do you mean the standard measure of it such as the sum rate or the capacity region? Moreover, note that this article focuses on DPC tecniques for multiple antenna wireless systems. Is it good answer?

Intro

The introduction is incomprehensible, at least to non-experts. Ben Finn (talk) 15:35, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Personally, I think it's like a really geeky game of Mornington Crescent. A successful next move would be "The hex flange of the Molton-Burblehauser quantifier ensures that the twirlymawotsit is suitably dualised." Torak (talk) 12:25, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

I’ve added a {{technical}}, which seem appropriate.

Nils von Barth (nbarth) (talk) 23:29, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

I'have rewritten the introduction so that it is at least placed in the proper context. Is that enough to remove the {{technical}} tag? But definitely someone shoudl explain what DPC *is*. --Jorge Stolfi (talk) 00:03, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

The introduction is _completely_ incomprehensible and what's worse the links to other wikipedia topics are either 404s or are to articles that only concern MIMO techniques. Since one type of DPC is to be used in one of the 10Gbit ethernet flavours this makes the whole network of inter-article links useless to readers who are approaching this from a non-RF viewpoint. It may be that the article on "precoding" is also defective in that its discussion is too narrow. The article needs a radical hike in user-friendliness.CecilWard (talk) 17:37, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

The article is not "too technical" but only "too short", as it does not go into technical details. The subject is pretty technical, and the non-technical analogy is as clear as it could be.
Hopefully, someday someone will expand the article with a technical description. Until then, please do not put comments directed to other editors on the article itself; that is what the Talk page is for. (Just because someone created a template for such a message, it does not mean that using the template is a good idea.) --Jorge Stolfi (talk) 13:29, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Still unclear

I have a technical background and while I can see the sort of thing that could be meant it is not really explained. And does it cancel the interference or ameliorate it? Rich Farmbrough, 15:46, 19 November 2009 (UTC).

I agree that it could be explained better. Is there anything from the presentation of the Simple: Dirty paper coding article that we could use to make this article better? DPS ameliorates the interference, it does not cancel it. For example, when a transmitter with one antenna transmits two independent messages to two independent receivers simultaneously, the message to each receiver is noise to the other receiver. To "cancel the interference" to one receiver would leave the other receiver without any message at all. DPC uses something a little more clever to transmit the two independent messages simultaneously, so each receiver gets its own message. --DavidCary (talk) 03:17, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

It's not "Too Technical"

Hey CombatWombat42, I very much disagree that this article is 'too technical'. In fact it needs a technical explanation to make the page complete. I will remove the 'too technical' banner as Jorge Stolfi suggests if I do not see a convincing response from you here. If you really want to improve the paper, I suggest that you use this simple explanation as a start. Sanpitch (talk) 00:12, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Hey User:Sanpitch the WP:LEAD is fine, the body is incredibly technical. I'm fairly technical skilled (I understand information theory and communications theory) and I barely know what "DPC and DPC-like techniques requires knowledge of the interference state in a non causal manner, such as channel state information of all users and other user data. Hence, the design of a DPC-based system should include a procedure to feed side information to the transmitters." means. CombatWombat42 (talk) 00:37, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

"If you really want to improve the paper, I suggest that you use this simple explanation as a start." That is an incredibly arogant thing to say. CombatWombat42 (talk) 00:38, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

CombatWombat42, I apologize for the implication that if you did not take my suggestion that you did not want to improve the article (I guess this is your concern). Let me re-state my suggestion in language that is hopefully more acceptable: If some is interested in adding technical details to the body of the article, one possibility is to use the example in this article, which I believe captures enough technical detail while remaining simple enough to be understandable. I will put this addition on my own to-do list. Sanpitch (talk) 02:58, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Dirty paper coding. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150121063414/http://faculty.cua.edu/regalia/EE572/costa_dirty_paper.pdf to http://faculty.cua.edu/regalia/EE572/costa_dirty_paper.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150121063414/http://faculty.cua.edu/regalia/EE572/costa_dirty_paper.pdf to http://faculty.cua.edu/regalia/EE572/costa_dirty_paper.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:58, 13 December 2016 (UTC)