Kraft's Inequality - Proof of The General Case

Proof of The General Case

Consider the generating function in inverse of x for the code S

in which —the coefficient in front of —is the number of distinct codewords of length . Here min is the length of the shortest codeword in S, and max is the length of the longest codeword in S.

For any positive integer m consider the m-fold product Sm, which consists of all the words of the form, where are indices between 1 and n. Note that, since S was assumed to uniquely decodable, if, then . In other words, every word in comes from a unique sequence of codewords in . Because of this property, one can compute the generating function for from the generating function as

$G(x) = \left( F(x) \right)^m = \left( \sum_{i=1}^n x^{-|s_i|} \right)^m = \sum_{i_1=1}^n \sum_{i_2=1}^n \cdots \sum_{i_m=1}^n x^{-\left(|s_{i_1}| + |s_{i_2}| + \cdots + |s_{i_m}|\right)} = \sum_{i_1=1}^n \sum_{i_2=1}^n \cdots \sum_{i_m=1}^n x^{-|s_{i_1} s_{i_2}\cdots s_{i_m}|} = \sum_{\ell=m \cdot \min}^{m \cdot \max} q_\ell \, x^{-\ell} \; .$

Here, similarly as before, —the coefficient in front of in —is the number of words of length in . Clearly, cannot exceed . Hence for any positive x

$\left( F(x) \right)^m \le \sum_{\ell=m \cdot \min}^{m \cdot \max} r^\ell \, x^{-\ell} \; .$

Substituting the value x = r we have

$\left( F(r) \right)^m \le m \cdot (\max-\min)+1$

for any positive integer . The left side of the inequality grows exponentially in and the right side only linearly. The only possibility for the inequality to be valid for all is that . Looking back on the definition of we finally get the inequality.

$\sum_{i=1}^n r^{-\ell_i} = \sum_{i=1}^n r^{-|s_i|} = F(r) \le 1 \; .$

Read more about this topic: Kraft's Inequality

Famous quotes containing the words proof of the, proof of, proof, general and/or case:

“From whichever angle one looks at it, the application of racial theories remains a striking proof of the lowered demands of public opinion upon the purity of critical judgment.”
—Johan Huizinga (1872–1945)

“There are some persons in this world, who, unable to give better proof of being wise, take a strange delight in showing what they think they have sagaciously read in mankind by uncharitable suspicions of them.”
—Herman Melville (1819–1891)

“The source of Pyrrhonism comes from failing to distinguish between a demonstration, a proof and a probability. A demonstration supposes that the contradictory idea is impossible; a proof of fact is where all the reasons lead to belief, without there being any pretext for doubt; a probability is where the reasons for belief are stronger than those for doubting.”
—Andrew Michael Ramsay (1686–1743)

“Treating ‘water’ as a name of a single scattered object is not intended to enable us to dispense with general terms and plurality of reference. Scatter is in fact an inconsequential detail.”
—Willard Van Orman Quine (b. 1908)

“I do not allow myself to be moved by anything except the law. If there has been a mistake in the law, or if I think there has been perjury or injustice, I will weigh the petition most carefully, but I do not permit myself to be moved by more harrowing details, and I try to treat each case as if I was reviewing it or hearing it for the first time from the bench.”
—William Howard Taft (1857–1930)