it possible to achieve a nonoptimal but acceptable coding performance on limited-size sources. The same conclusion applies to Elias-delta coding for large sources, with the advantage of being straightforward to implement, in contrast with Huffman coding. An Elias-delta variant, known as Elias-omega or recursive Elias coding makes it possible to shorten the codeword lengths, but with limited benefits as the source size increases.2 The Elias coding approach is referred to as nonparameterized. This means that the symbol-codeword correspondence is fixed with the code choice (gamma, delta, recur- sive). In parameterized coding, an integer parameter m is introduced to create another degree of freedom in the choice and optimization of codeword lengths. This is the case of the Golomb codes and the Fibonacci codes, which I describe next. The Fibonacci codes are based on the Fibonacci numbers of order m > 2. Fibonacci numbers form a suite of integer numbers F(-m + 1), F(-m + 2), F(0), F(1) F(k), which are defined as follows: (a) The number F(k) with k > 1 is equal to the sum of all preceding m numbers; (b) The numbers F(-m + 1) to F(0) are all equal to unity. Taking, for instance, m = 2, we have F(-1) = F(0) = 1, thus, F(1) = F(-1) + F(0) = 2, F(2) = F(1) + F(0) = 3, and SO on, which yields the Fibonacci-number suite 1, 1, 2, 3, 5, 8, 13, 21, 34, The construction of a Fibonacci code based on the m = 2 parameter for the integer set {1, 2, , 34} is illustrated by the example shown in Table 10.2. As the table indicates, the integer set {1, 2, , 34} is first listed 1 As intermediate values, we find for a 64-element, uniformly distributed source (H : log 64 = 6), the coding efficiencies of n(gamma) = 64.8% and n(delta) = 68.8% See, for instance: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elias_omega_coding Integer, arithmetic, and adaptive coding Table 10.2 Construction of a Fibonacci code of order m=2 from the suite of Fibonacci numbers shown at the bottom. 00011 10011 01011 10000 000011 10001 100011 10010 010011 10100 001011 10101 101011 1