MinT - Information on Result #575838

Information on Result #575838

There is no linear OOA(4²⁵⁷, 265, F₄, 3, 193) (dual of [(265, 3), 538, 194]-NRT-code), because 1 times depth reduction would yield linear OOA(4²⁵⁷, 265, F₄, 2, 193) (dual of [(265, 2), 273, 194]-NRT-code), but

1 step m-reduction [i] would yield linear OA(4²⁵⁶, 265, F₄, 192) (dual of [265, 9, 193]-code), but
- constructionÂ Y1 [i] would yield
  1. linear OA(4²⁵⁵, 261, F₄, 192) (dual of [261, 6, 193]-code), but
    - constructionÂ Y1 [i] would yield
      1. linear OA(4²⁵⁴, 258, F₄, 192) (dual of [258, 4, 193]-code), but
        Griesmer bound [i]
      2. linear OA(4⁶, 261, F₄, 3) (dual of [261, 255, 4]-code or 261-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(4⁹, 265, S₄, 4), but
    - discarding factors would yield OA(4⁹, 242, S₄, 4), but
      - the Rao or (dual) Hamming bound shows that MÂ â‰¥ 263176 > 4⁹ [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.