MinT - Best Known (59, 59+121, s)-Nets in Base 3

Best Known (59, 59+121, s)-Nets in Base 3

(59, 59+121, 48)-Net over F₃ — Constructive and digital

Digital (59, 180, 48)-net over F₃, using

t-expansion [i] based on digital (45, 180, 48)-net over F₃, using
- net from sequence [i] based on digital (45, 47)-sequence over F₃, using
  - Niederreiterâ€“Xing sequence constructionÂ II/III [i] based on function field F/F₃ with g(F) = 45 and N(F) ≥ 48, using
    - an explicitly constructive algebraic function field [i]

(59, 59+121, 64)-Net over F₃ — Digital

Digital (59, 180, 64)-net over F₃, using

t-expansion [i] based on digital (49, 180, 64)-net over F₃, using
- net from sequence [i] based on digital (49, 63)-sequence over F₃, using
  - Niederreiterâ€“Xing sequence constructionÂ II/III [i] based on function field F/F₃ with g(F) = 49 and N(F) ≥ 64, using
    - a curve from the manYPoints database [i]

(59, 59+121, 187)-Net over F₃ — Upper bound on s (digital)

There is no digital (59, 180, 188)-net over F₃, because

1 times m-reduction [i] would yield digital (59, 179, 188)-net over F₃, but
- extracting embedded orthogonal array [i] would yield linear OA(3¹⁷⁹, 188, F₃, 120) (dual of [188, 9, 121]-code), but
  - constructionÂ Y1 [i] would yield
    1. linear OA(3¹⁷⁸, 184, F₃, 120) (dual of [184, 6, 121]-code), but
      - residual code [i] would yield linear OA(3⁵⁸, 63, F₃, 40) (dual of [63, 5, 41]-code), but
        1 times truncation [i] would yield linear OA(3⁵⁷, 62, F₃, 39) (dual of [62, 5, 40]-code), but
        residual code [i] would yield linear OA(3¹⁸, 22, F₃, 13) (dual of [22, 4, 14]-code), but
        1 times truncation [i] would yield linear OA(3¹⁷, 21, F₃, 12) (dual of [21, 4, 13]-code), but
        â€œHNâ€ bound on codes from Brouwerâ€™s database [i]
    2. OA(3⁹, 188, S₃, 4), but
      - discarding factors would yield OA(3⁹, 100, S₃, 4), but
        the Rao or (dual) Hamming bound shows that MÂ â‰¥ 20001 > 3⁹ [i]

(59, 59+121, 252)-Net in Base 3 — Upper bound on s

There is no (59, 180, 253)-net in base 3, because

1 times m-reduction [i] would yield (59, 179, 253)-net in base 3, but
- the generalized Rao bound for nets shows that 3^mÂ â‰¥ 29 397016 137187 322593 249976 623897 918408 445053 870110 905391 103686 566351 016544 398618 033201 > 3¹⁷⁹ [i]