Information on Result #563141
There is no linear OOA(834, 46, F8, 2, 30) (dual of [(46, 2), 58, 31]-NRT-code), because 2 step m-reduction would yield linear OA(832, 46, F8, 28) (dual of [46, 14, 29]-code), but
- construction Y1 [i] would yield
- linear OA(831, 34, F8, 28) (dual of [34, 3, 29]-code), but
- “Mas†bound on codes from Brouwer’s database [i]
- linear OA(814, 46, F8, 12) (dual of [46, 32, 13]-code), but
- discarding factors / shortening the dual code would yield linear OA(814, 32, F8, 12) (dual of [32, 18, 13]-code), but
- construction Y1 [i] would yield
- linear OA(813, 16, F8, 12) (dual of [16, 3, 13]-code), but
- “Hi4†bound on codes from Brouwer’s database [i]
- linear OA(818, 32, F8, 16) (dual of [32, 14, 17]-code), but
- discarding factors / shortening the dual code would yield linear OA(818, 27, F8, 16) (dual of [27, 9, 17]-code), but
- residual code [i] would yield OA(82, 10, S8, 2), but
- bound for OAs with strength k = 2 [i]
- the Rao or (dual) Hamming bound shows that M ≥ 71 > 82 [i]
- residual code [i] would yield OA(82, 10, S8, 2), but
- discarding factors / shortening the dual code would yield linear OA(818, 27, F8, 16) (dual of [27, 9, 17]-code), but
- linear OA(813, 16, F8, 12) (dual of [16, 3, 13]-code), but
- construction Y1 [i] would yield
- discarding factors / shortening the dual code would yield linear OA(814, 32, F8, 12) (dual of [32, 18, 13]-code), but
- linear OA(831, 34, F8, 28) (dual of [34, 3, 29]-code), but
Mode: Bound (linear).
Optimality
Show details for fixed k and m, n and k, k and s, k and t, n and m, m and s, m and t, n and s, n and t.
Other Results with Identical Parameters
None.
Depending Results
The following results depend on this result:
| Result | This result only | Method | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | No linear OOA(834, 46, F8, 3, 30) (dual of [(46, 3), 104, 31]-NRT-code) | [i] | Depth Reduction | |