MinT - Best Known (32, 32+36, s)-Nets in Base 2

Best Known (32, 32+36, s)-Nets in Base 2

(32, 32+36, 21)-Net over F₂ — Constructive and digital

Digital (32, 68, 21)-net over F₂, using

t-expansion [i] based on digital (21, 68, 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]

(32, 32+36, 27)-Net over F₂ — Digital

Digital (32, 68, 27)-net over F₂, using

t-expansion [i] based on digital (31, 68, 27)-net over F₂, using
- net from sequence [i] based on digital (31, 26)-sequence over F₂, using
  - Niederreiterâ€“Xing sequence constructionÂ II/III [i] based on function field F/F₂ with g(F) = 31 and N(F) ≥ 27, using
    - Drinfeld modules of rank 1 [i]

(32, 32+36, 71)-Net over F₂ — Upper bound on s (digital)

There is no digital (32, 68, 72)-net over F₂, because

4 times m-reduction [i] would yield digital (32, 64, 72)-net over F₂, but
- extracting embedded orthogonal array [i] would yield linear OA(2⁶⁴, 72, F₂, 32) (dual of [72, 8, 33]-code), but
  - adding a parity check bit [i] would yield linear OA(2⁶⁵, 73, F₂, 33) (dual of [73, 8, 34]-code), but
    - â€œBJVâ€ bound on codes from Brouwerâ€™s database [i]

(32, 32+36, 75)-Net in Base 2 — Upper bound on s

There is no (32, 68, 76)-net in base 2, because

2 times m-reduction [i] would yield (32, 66, 76)-net in base 2, but
- extracting embedded orthogonal array [i] would yield OA(2⁶⁶, 76, S₂, 34), but
  - the linear programming bound shows that MÂ â‰¥ 2361 183241 434822 606848 / 23 > 2⁶⁶ [i]