![]() | This article was nominated for deletion on 22 December 2012 (UTC). The result of the discussion was keep. |
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. |
![]() | This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.
Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. | Reporting errors |
This article was proposed for deletion with rationale This article presents original research, which is not permitted by our policies. Unless you can add reliable and independent sources, which attest to the subject's notability, your article will be deleted. Thank you for your understanding. This seems wrong and I have contested the PROD since the article does indeed cite reliable sources, namely a peer-reviewed academic journal, and our policy on original research is a prohibition on editors directly publishing their own unsupported work in an article -- it does not mean that we cannot report research published in independent reliable sources, which this appears to do. Deltahedron (talk) 07:33, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
What does "totally anti-symmetric" mean in the context of this article? What other wikipedia article talks about the kind of "anti-symmetric" and "totally anti-symmetric" alluded to here?
At first I thought maybe that phrase should link to antisymmetric matrix, but the table given in this article doesn't seem to meet the definition given in that article. --DavidCary (talk) 17:29, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
I can't find description of algorithm that would match the one given in this article and used in example. References define that an m-digit sequence with a check digit shall satisfy where and is a totally anti-symmetric quasigroup. The step-by-step description of algorithm in this article uses interim digit with fixed initial value of 0 which means that a slightly different equation is used, i.e. . I don't see any problem with this itself, because it's the same as computing with tacitly leading zero prefix, so all the properties should still hold. However, the example then uses a quasigroup which not totally anti-symmetric, because, for example 2 * 5 = 5 * 2. It is only weak totally anti-symmetric. With weak totally anti-symmetric quasigroup, check digit calculated using the original formula as given in references would fail to detect adjacent transpositions, e.g. both 257 and 527 would have a correct check digit. The scheme, nevertheless, appears to work exactly because of the fixed initial 0. The recent edit added possible justification for this stating that for this modified equation only a weak totally anti-symmetric quasigroup with additional property of x ∗ x = 0 is needed. I can easily see that other statements (definition of weak totally anti-symmetric, and that existence of weak of given order implies existence of totally anti-symmetric and that one can be constructed from another with appropriate permutation) are present in the referenced dissertation (and they are restated later in English in ScienceDirect article, referenced as well), but I can't find anything about using fixed prefix. Did I miss something or are we missing some important references? — mwgamera (talk) 19:11, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
Assuming a number with digits numbered left to right d1d2d3d4 . . . and a “working digit” w we then –
- Set w = 0
- Successively set w = M[w, di], working from the left (row w, column di of the matrix).
- Append the final w as the check digit.
Rearranging the rows of the body of the table in conjuntion with changing the entries correspondingly is done as follows:
Let e be the digit that shall be in the main diagonal (x*x=e for all x∈Q).
(In the example is e=0.)
Then find the fixed point f of the column permutation in the column with the header e.
(In the example is f=0.)
Create a new empty operation table.
Copy the header row of column headers from the old to the new table.
Do for each row of the old table the following:
(Because of having different row headers, the rows in the new table are in a different order then the columns.)
Sort the rows of the new table into the same order as the columns with respect to the headers by rearranging the complete rows including their headers.
As we see, rearranging the rows does not work if and only if the column permutation in the column with the header e has no fixed point. Yet Damm has proved that in a TA/WTA-quasigroup each column permutation has exactly one fixed point. (See Damm's doctoral dissertation page 104, Lemma 7.2) Consequently, rearranging the rows works in all cases of quasigroups used in Damm algorithm.
--W96 (talk) 19:10, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
The article explains that leading zeros have no effect on the checksum but that is probably not a weakness but a strength. If there is a weakness, surely it is that trailing zeros have no effect? 13, 130, 1300 and 13000 are all valid. An easy defence would be to reject all numbers ending in (one or more) zeros. Johnhwoods (talk) 08:44, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
Whilst I'm thinking about zeros, the weaknesses section says that no checksum algorithm is affected by leading zeros. But it looks to me like Verhoeff is.