Best Known (18−16, 18, s)-Nets in Base 9
(18−16, 18, 20)-Net over F9 — Constructive and digital
Digital (2, 18, 20)-net over F9, using
- net from sequence [i] based on digital (2, 19)-sequence over F9, using
- Niederreiter–Xing sequence construction II/III [i] based on function field F/F9 with g(F) = 2 and N(F) ≥ 20, using
(18−16, 18, 37)-Net over F9 — Upper bound on s (digital)
There is no digital (2, 18, 38)-net over F9, because
- extracting embedded orthogonal array [i] would yield linear OA(918, 38, F9, 16) (dual of [38, 20, 17]-code), but
- construction Y1 [i] would yield
- linear OA(917, 20, F9, 16) (dual of [20, 3, 17]-code), but
- linear OA(920, 38, F9, 18) (dual of [38, 18, 19]-code), but
- discarding factors / shortening the dual code would yield linear OA(920, 30, F9, 18) (dual of [30, 10, 19]-code), but
- residual code [i] would yield OA(92, 11, S9, 2), but
- bound for OAs with strength k = 2 [i]
- the Rao or (dual) Hamming bound shows that M ≥ 89 > 92 [i]
- residual code [i] would yield OA(92, 11, S9, 2), but
- discarding factors / shortening the dual code would yield linear OA(920, 30, F9, 18) (dual of [30, 10, 19]-code), but
- construction Y1 [i] would yield
(18−16, 18, 59)-Net in Base 9 — Upper bound on s
There is no (2, 18, 60)-net in base 9, because
- 4 times m-reduction [i] would yield (2, 14, 60)-net in base 9, but
- the generalized Rao bound for nets shows that 9m ≥ 23 188827 548097 > 914 [i]