Table of Contents
Fetching ...

Length-Maximal Codes with Given Singleton Defect: Structure and Bounds

Tim Alderson

Abstract

We study the maximum length of $q$-ary codes as a function of alphabet size, code size, and Singleton defect. For an $(n, M, d)_q$ code with dimension $κ= \log_q M \ge 2$ and Singleton defect $s = n - \lceilκ\rceil + 1 - d$, we establish a \emph{maximal-arc-type bound}. For $M = q^k$, we call codes with $n = (s+1)(q+1) + k - 2$ \emph{length-maximal}, and show such codes are necessarily symbol-uniform, have pairwise distances confined to $\{d\} \cup \{n-k+3, \ldots, n\}$, and satisfy the divisibility condition $(s+2) \mid q(q+1)$. An equivalent form yields an improved Singleton-type inequality extending a result of Guerrini, Meneghetti, and Sala for binary systematic codes. When $s \ge 2q$, the bound tightens to $n \le s(q+1)+k-1$; more finely, when $αq \le s < (α+1)q$ for integer $α\ge 2$, it tightens to $n \le (s+2-α)(q+1)+α+k-3$, improving on the main bound by $(α-1)q$. We identify several conditions under which nonlinear codes satisfy the Griesmer bound, including: $d \le q^2$; $s \le q-1$; $s \ge βq$ with $d \le βq^2$; and a parametric family of binary conditions. We also show that near-length-maximal $A^1$MDS codes of length $k+2q-1$ cannot exist for $k \ge 5$ when $q=2$, nor for $k \ge 7$ when $q=3$. For codes of non-integer dimension $κ\in (k, k+1)$, an analogous bound holds but is never attained. This forces the corresponding Singleton-type inequality one unit tighter than the integer-dimension case. For rational non-integer $κ$, our bounds specialise to a length bound for additive codes of fractional dimension, complementing recent geometric results on additive codes. Throughout, the results parallel the theory of maximal arcs. Whether length-maximal nonlinear codes can exist for parameter ranges within which no linear length-maximal codes exist is the principal open problem raised by this work.

Length-Maximal Codes with Given Singleton Defect: Structure and Bounds

Abstract

We study the maximum length of -ary codes as a function of alphabet size, code size, and Singleton defect. For an code with dimension and Singleton defect , we establish a \emph{maximal-arc-type bound}. For , we call codes with \emph{length-maximal}, and show such codes are necessarily symbol-uniform, have pairwise distances confined to , and satisfy the divisibility condition . An equivalent form yields an improved Singleton-type inequality extending a result of Guerrini, Meneghetti, and Sala for binary systematic codes. When , the bound tightens to ; more finely, when for integer , it tightens to , improving on the main bound by . We identify several conditions under which nonlinear codes satisfy the Griesmer bound, including: ; ; with ; and a parametric family of binary conditions. We also show that near-length-maximal MDS codes of length cannot exist for when , nor for when . For codes of non-integer dimension , an analogous bound holds but is never attained. This forces the corresponding Singleton-type inequality one unit tighter than the integer-dimension case. For rational non-integer , our bounds specialise to a length bound for additive codes of fractional dimension, complementing recent geometric results on additive codes. Throughout, the results parallel the theory of maximal arcs. Whether length-maximal nonlinear codes can exist for parameter ranges within which no linear length-maximal codes exist is the principal open problem raised by this work.

Paper Structure

This paper contains 18 sections, 44 theorems, 79 equations, 2 tables.

Key Result

Theorem 2.1

For any $(n, M, d)_q$ code with dimension $\kappa = \log_q M$, $\blacktriangleleft$$\blacktriangleleft$

Theorems & Definitions (95)

  • Theorem 2.1: Singleton Bound Singleton1964MacWilliamsSloane1977
  • Definition 2.2
  • Theorem 2.3: $q$-ary Plotkin Bound Plotkin1960MR238597GuruswamiRudraSudan2022
  • Theorem 2.4: Binary Plotkin Bound Plotkin1960MR238597MacWilliamsSloane1977
  • Theorem 2.5: Griesmer Bound Griesmer1960SS65
  • Definition 2.6
  • Example 2.7
  • Definition 2.8
  • Lemma 2.9: Properties of Shortening
  • Lemma 3.1
  • ...and 85 more