Information on Result #1850529

There is no (138, m, 290)-net in base 3 for arbitrarily large m, because m-reduction would yield (138, 1733, 290)-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 (138, 289)-sequence in base 3 [i]Net from Sequence
2No (138, 138+k, 290)-net in base 3 for arbitrarily large k [i]Logical Equivalence (for Nets with Unbounded m)
3No (138, m, 290)-net in base 3 with unbounded m [i]
4No digital (138, 138+k, 290)-net over F3 for arbitrarily large k [i]
5No digital (138, m, 290)-net over F3 with unbounded m [i]