Talk:Minimum weight

I've changed to non-TeX inline math notation. But if you code this in TeX, please note:
 * WRONG: w_{min}
 * BETTER, but still problematic: w_\mbox{min}
 * BETTER STILL, but not best: w_\text{min}
 * RIGHT: w_\min
 * BETTER STILL, but not best: w_\text{min}
 * RIGHT: w_\min
 * RIGHT: w_\min
 * RIGHT: w_\min

Here's how they come out:
 * $$ w_{min} \, $$
 * $$ w_\mbox{min} \, $$
 * $$ w_\text{min} \, $$
 * $$ w_\min \, $$
 * $$ w_\text{min} \, $$
 * $$ w_\min \, $$
 * $$ w_\min \, $$
 * $$ w_\min \, $$

\min is a built-in math operator name in TeX. Michael Hardy (talk) 16:26, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

There is a problem with the definition in combination with the claim concerning the relation to the minimum distance of a linear code. The minimum weight of a linear code (as defined now) is 0, since the all-zero codeword is in the code and has weight 0. Therefore, we want to define the minimum weight of a linear code as the smallest nonzero weight of a codeword. So it makes sence to keep that definition for all codes...Hdlh (talk) 13:13, 25 September 2013 (UTC)