MinT - Information on Result #573684

Information on Result #573684

There is no linear OOA(4¹⁷⁴, 182, F₄, 3, 131) (dual of [(182, 3), 372, 132]-NRT-code), because 1 times depth reduction would yield linear OOA(4¹⁷⁴, 182, F₄, 2, 131) (dual of [(182, 2), 190, 132]-NRT-code), but

3 step m-reduction [i] would yield linear OA(4¹⁷¹, 182, F₄, 128) (dual of [182, 11, 129]-code), but
- constructionÂ Y1 [i] would yield
  1. linear OA(4¹⁷⁰, 176, F₄, 128) (dual of [176, 6, 129]-code), but
    - constructionÂ Y1 [i] would yield
      1. linear OA(4¹⁶⁹, 173, F₄, 128) (dual of [173, 4, 129]-code), but
        Griesmer bound [i]
      2. linear OA(4⁶, 176, F₄, 3) (dual of [176, 170, 4]-code or 176-cap in PG(5,4)), but
        discarding factors / shortening the dual code would yield linear OA(4⁶, 160, F₄, 3) (dual of [160, 154, 4]-code or 160-cap in PG(5,4)), but
        1 times Hill recurrence [i] would yield linear OA(4⁵, 42, F₄, 3) (dual of [42, 37, 4]-code or 42-cap in PG(4,4)), but
        41 is the largest size of a cap in PG(4,Â 4) [i]
  2. OA(4¹¹, 182, S₄, 6), but
    - discarding factors would yield OA(4¹¹, 99, S₄, 6), but
      - the Rao or (dual) Hamming bound shows that MÂ â‰¥ 4 278880 > 4¹¹ [i]

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

None.