Information on Result #1850424

There is no (103, m, 220)-net in base 3 for arbitrarily large m, because m-reduction would yield (103, 1093, 220)-net in base 3, but

Mode: Bound.

Optimality

Show details for fixed m and s, m and t, t and s.

Other Results with Identical Parameters

None.

Depending Results

The following results depend on this result:

ResultThis
result
only
Method
1No (103, 219)-sequence in base 3 [i]Net from Sequence
2No (103, 103+k, 220)-net in base 3 for arbitrarily large k [i]Logical Equivalence (for Nets with Unbounded m)
3No (103, m, 220)-net in base 3 with unbounded m [i]
4No digital (103, 103+k, 220)-net over F3 for arbitrarily large k [i]
5No digital (103, m, 220)-net over F3 with unbounded m [i]