Best Known (66, 201, s)-Nets in Base 3
(66, 201, 48)-Net over F3 — Constructive and digital
Digital (66, 201, 48)-net over F3, using
- t-expansion [i] based on digital (45, 201, 48)-net over F3, using
- net from sequence [i] based on digital (45, 47)-sequence over F3, using
- Niederreiter–Xing sequence construction II/III [i] based on function field F/F3 with g(F) = 45 and N(F) ≥ 48, using
- net from sequence [i] based on digital (45, 47)-sequence over F3, using
(66, 201, 64)-Net over F3 — Digital
Digital (66, 201, 64)-net over F3, using
- t-expansion [i] based on digital (49, 201, 64)-net over F3, using
- net from sequence [i] based on digital (49, 63)-sequence over F3, using
- Niederreiter–Xing sequence construction II/III [i] based on function field F/F3 with g(F) = 49 and N(F) ≥ 64, using
- net from sequence [i] based on digital (49, 63)-sequence over F3, using
(66, 201, 206)-Net over F3 — Upper bound on s (digital)
There is no digital (66, 201, 207)-net over F3, because
- extracting embedded orthogonal array [i] would yield linear OA(3201, 207, F3, 135) (dual of [207, 6, 136]-code), but
- residual code [i] would yield linear OA(366, 71, F3, 45) (dual of [71, 5, 46]-code), but
- “HW1†bound on codes from Brouwer’s database [i]
- residual code [i] would yield linear OA(366, 71, F3, 45) (dual of [71, 5, 46]-code), but
(66, 201, 280)-Net in Base 3 — Upper bound on s
There is no (66, 201, 281)-net in base 3, because
- 1 times m-reduction [i] would yield (66, 200, 281)-net in base 3, but
- the generalized Rao bound for nets shows that 3m ≥ 275640 491943 162744 714236 352677 857889 580333 578854 420588 671642 898395 558397 014566 560418 396536 000059 > 3200 [i]