Function-correcting codes were introduced in the work "Function-Correcting Codes" (FCC) by Lenz et al. 2023, which provides a graphical representation for the problem of constructing function-correcting codes. We use this function dependent graph to get a lower bound on the redundancy required for function correction codes. Considering the function to be a bijection, leads to a lower bound on the redundancy required for classical systematic error correcting codes (ECCs). We propose a range of parameters for which this bound is tight. For single error correcting codes, we show that this bound is at least as good as a bound proposed by Zinoviev, Litsyn, and Laihonen in 1998. Thus, this framework helps to study classical systematic error correcting codes. Further, we study the structure of this function dependent graph for linear functions, which leads to bounds on the redundancy of linear-function correcting codes. We show that the Plotkin-like bound for function-correcting codes proposed by Lenz et.al 2023 is simplified for linear functions. We identify a class of linear functions for which an upper bound proposed by Lenz et al., is tight and also identify a class of functions for which coset-wise coding is equivalent to a lower dimensional classical error correction problem.

A class of codes designed to protect function evaluations of a message from errors was introduced in “Function-Correcting Codes” by Lenz et al. 2023. They provide a graphical representation for the problem of constructing functioncorrecting codes. We use this graph to get a lower bound on the redundancy required for function correction and classical error correction. For linear functions, we show that the adjacency matrix of this graph is diagonalised by tensor powers of Discrete Fourier Transform (DFT) matrices, which leads to a lower bound on redundancy. Also, we propose a version of the sphere packing bound for linear-function correcting codes. Further more, we identify a class of linear functions for which an upper bound proposed by Lenz et al., is tight.