Best Known (89, 89+158, s)-Nets in Base 3
(89, 89+158, 64)-Net over F3 — Constructive and digital
Digital (89, 247, 64)-net over F3, using
- net from sequence [i] based on digital (89, 63)-sequence over F3, using
- base reduction for sequences [i] based on digital (13, 63)-sequence over F9, using
- Niederreiter–Xing sequence construction II/III [i] based on function field F/F9 with g(F) = 13 and N(F) ≥ 64, using
- base reduction for sequences [i] based on digital (13, 63)-sequence over F9, using
(89, 89+158, 96)-Net over F3 — Digital
Digital (89, 247, 96)-net over F3, using
- net from sequence [i] based on digital (89, 95)-sequence over F3, using
- Niederreiter–Xing sequence construction II/III [i] based on function field F/F3 with g(F) = 89 and N(F) ≥ 96, using
(89, 89+158, 389)-Net over F3 — Upper bound on s (digital)
There is no digital (89, 247, 390)-net over F3, because
- 2 times m-reduction [i] would yield digital (89, 245, 390)-net over F3, but
- extracting embedded orthogonal array [i] would yield linear OA(3245, 390, F3, 156) (dual of [390, 145, 157]-code), but
- residual code [i] would yield linear OA(389, 233, F3, 52) (dual of [233, 144, 53]-code), but
- the Johnson bound shows that N ≤ 495 041572 388827 382337 917134 411719 483784 605757 670798 500294 630099 278193 < 3144 [i]
- residual code [i] would yield linear OA(389, 233, F3, 52) (dual of [233, 144, 53]-code), but
- extracting embedded orthogonal array [i] would yield linear OA(3245, 390, F3, 156) (dual of [390, 145, 157]-code), but
(89, 89+158, 395)-Net in Base 3 — Upper bound on s
There is no (89, 247, 396)-net in base 3, because
- the generalized Rao bound for nets shows that 3m ≥ 7726 718203 964402 330692 663563 629538 010099 996972 467317 280733 829133 896262 733222 315763 692582 020538 653019 486913 073597 481617 > 3247 [i]