Information on Result #1857621

There is no (33, 289)-sequence in base 9, because net from sequence would yield (33, m, 290)-net in base 9 for arbitrarily large m, 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 (33, 289)-sequence in base 9 (for arbitrarily large k) [i]Logical Equivalence (for Sequences)
2No (33, m, 289)-net in base 9 with m > ∞ [i]
3No digital (33, 289)-sequence over F9 (for arbitrarily large k) [i]
4No digital (33, m, 289)-net over F9 with m > ∞ [i]