Information on Result #586682
There is no linear OOA(2193, 206, F2, 5, 96) (dual of [(206, 5), 837, 97]-NRT-code), because 4 times depth reduction would yield linear OA(2193, 206, F2, 96) (dual of [206, 13, 97]-code), but
- construction Y1 [i] would yield
- linear OA(2192, 202, F2, 96) (dual of [202, 10, 97]-code), but
- residual code [i] would yield linear OA(296, 105, F2, 48) (dual of [105, 9, 49]-code), but
- residual code [i] would yield linear OA(248, 56, F2, 24) (dual of [56, 8, 25]-code), but
- adding a parity check bit [i] would yield linear OA(249, 57, F2, 25) (dual of [57, 8, 26]-code), but
- “BJV†bound on codes from Brouwer’s database [i]
- adding a parity check bit [i] would yield linear OA(249, 57, F2, 25) (dual of [57, 8, 26]-code), but
- residual code [i] would yield linear OA(248, 56, F2, 24) (dual of [56, 8, 25]-code), but
- residual code [i] would yield linear OA(296, 105, F2, 48) (dual of [105, 9, 49]-code), but
- OA(213, 206, S2, 4), but
- discarding factors would yield OA(213, 128, S2, 4), but
- the Rao or (dual) Hamming bound shows that M ≥ 8257 > 213 [i]
- discarding factors would yield OA(213, 128, S2, 4), but
- linear OA(2192, 202, F2, 96) (dual of [202, 10, 97]-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
None.