MinT - Best Known (48−24, 48, s)-Nets in Base 2

Best Known (48−24, 48, s)-Nets in Base 2

(48−24, 48, 21)-Net over F₂ — Constructive and digital

Digital (24, 48, 21)-net over F₂, using

t-expansion [i] based on digital (21, 48, 21)-net over F₂, using
- net from sequence [i] based on digital (21, 20)-sequence over F₂, using
  - Niederreiterâ€“Xing sequence constructionÂ II/III [i] based on function field F/F₂ with g(F) = 21 and N(F) ≥ 21, using
    - an explicitly constructive algebraic function field [i]

(48−24, 48, 22)-Net over F₂ — Digital

Digital (24, 48, 22)-net over F₂, using

t-expansion [i] based on digital (23, 48, 22)-net over F₂, using
- net from sequence [i] based on digital (23, 21)-sequence over F₂, using
  - Niederreiterâ€“Xing sequence constructionÂ II/III [i] based on function field F/F₂ with g(F) = 23 and N(F) ≥ 22, using
    - Drinfeld modules of rank 1 [i]

(48−24, 48, 55)-Net over F₂ — Upper bound on s (digital)

There is no digital (24, 48, 56)-net over F₂, because

extracting embedded orthogonal array [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
  - â€œBJVâ€ bound on codes from Brouwerâ€™s database [i]

(48−24, 48, 61)-Net in Base 2 — Upper bound on s

There is no (24, 48, 62)-net in base 2, because

extracting embedded orthogonal array [i] would yield OA(2⁴⁸, 62, S₂, 24), but
- the linear programming bound shows that MÂ â‰¥ 359162 070282 797056 / 1105 > 2⁴⁸ [i]