I also don't understand whether A(n,d,w) is the number of sets where the > hamming distance is exactly d (as it would seem from the text of > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constant-weight_code ), or whether it is the > number of set where the hamming distance is d or less. If the former case > is true then the lower bounds given in the tables would actually be lower > than the actual lower bounds for the question I asked, which would > correspond to all cases where the hamming distance is d or less. >
The case where the Hamming distance is d or less corresponds to a bounded-weight code rather than a constant-weight code. I already forwarded you a link to a paper on bounded-weight codes, which are also combinatorially intractable and have been studied only via computational analysis. -- Ben G ------------------------------------------- agi Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244&id_secret=117534816-b15a34 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
