How did they come up with the MRRW bound?












2














Among the good asymptotic bounds in coding theory in the MRRW bound. It is obtained by using the linear programming problem of Delsarte's and providing a solution. The LP problem is




Suppose $C subset mathbb{F}_2^n $ is a code such $d(C)ge d$. Let
$beta(x) = 1+ sum_{k=1}^{n} y_k K_k (x)$ be a polynomial such that
$y_k ge 0$ but $beta(j) le 0$ for $j=d, d+1,dots ,n$. Then, we have that $|C| le beta(0)$.




Here $K_k(x)$ are the Kravchuk polynomials. In the proof of the MRRW bound, upto scaling, they basically come up with the following polynomial $beta$ for a general $n$.



$$beta(x) =frac{1}{a-x} left[ K_t(a) K_{t+1}(x) - K_{t+1}(a)K_{t}(x) right]^{2}$$



After using the Christoffel-Darboux formula the values of $t$ and $a$ are adjusted to make it optimal.



There is no justification for why such a polynomial was chosen other than that it works. Is there anything more that can be said over why this polynomial was chosen?










share|cite|improve this question





























    2














    Among the good asymptotic bounds in coding theory in the MRRW bound. It is obtained by using the linear programming problem of Delsarte's and providing a solution. The LP problem is




    Suppose $C subset mathbb{F}_2^n $ is a code such $d(C)ge d$. Let
    $beta(x) = 1+ sum_{k=1}^{n} y_k K_k (x)$ be a polynomial such that
    $y_k ge 0$ but $beta(j) le 0$ for $j=d, d+1,dots ,n$. Then, we have that $|C| le beta(0)$.




    Here $K_k(x)$ are the Kravchuk polynomials. In the proof of the MRRW bound, upto scaling, they basically come up with the following polynomial $beta$ for a general $n$.



    $$beta(x) =frac{1}{a-x} left[ K_t(a) K_{t+1}(x) - K_{t+1}(a)K_{t}(x) right]^{2}$$



    After using the Christoffel-Darboux formula the values of $t$ and $a$ are adjusted to make it optimal.



    There is no justification for why such a polynomial was chosen other than that it works. Is there anything more that can be said over why this polynomial was chosen?










    share|cite|improve this question



























      2












      2








      2







      Among the good asymptotic bounds in coding theory in the MRRW bound. It is obtained by using the linear programming problem of Delsarte's and providing a solution. The LP problem is




      Suppose $C subset mathbb{F}_2^n $ is a code such $d(C)ge d$. Let
      $beta(x) = 1+ sum_{k=1}^{n} y_k K_k (x)$ be a polynomial such that
      $y_k ge 0$ but $beta(j) le 0$ for $j=d, d+1,dots ,n$. Then, we have that $|C| le beta(0)$.




      Here $K_k(x)$ are the Kravchuk polynomials. In the proof of the MRRW bound, upto scaling, they basically come up with the following polynomial $beta$ for a general $n$.



      $$beta(x) =frac{1}{a-x} left[ K_t(a) K_{t+1}(x) - K_{t+1}(a)K_{t}(x) right]^{2}$$



      After using the Christoffel-Darboux formula the values of $t$ and $a$ are adjusted to make it optimal.



      There is no justification for why such a polynomial was chosen other than that it works. Is there anything more that can be said over why this polynomial was chosen?










      share|cite|improve this question















      Among the good asymptotic bounds in coding theory in the MRRW bound. It is obtained by using the linear programming problem of Delsarte's and providing a solution. The LP problem is




      Suppose $C subset mathbb{F}_2^n $ is a code such $d(C)ge d$. Let
      $beta(x) = 1+ sum_{k=1}^{n} y_k K_k (x)$ be a polynomial such that
      $y_k ge 0$ but $beta(j) le 0$ for $j=d, d+1,dots ,n$. Then, we have that $|C| le beta(0)$.




      Here $K_k(x)$ are the Kravchuk polynomials. In the proof of the MRRW bound, upto scaling, they basically come up with the following polynomial $beta$ for a general $n$.



      $$beta(x) =frac{1}{a-x} left[ K_t(a) K_{t+1}(x) - K_{t+1}(a)K_{t}(x) right]^{2}$$



      After using the Christoffel-Darboux formula the values of $t$ and $a$ are adjusted to make it optimal.



      There is no justification for why such a polynomial was chosen other than that it works. Is there anything more that can be said over why this polynomial was chosen?







      asymptotics linear-programming coding-theory






      share|cite|improve this question















      share|cite|improve this question













      share|cite|improve this question




      share|cite|improve this question








      edited 1 hour ago

























      asked 6 hours ago









      Breakfastisready

      1079




      1079






















          1 Answer
          1






          active

          oldest

          votes


















          3














          For linear programming type bounds it is sometimes only possible to give effective bounds (that is bounds that work and are manageable) and what is often surprising is that the primitive method often gives in fact optimal bounds.



          The LP problem from McEliece, Rodemich, Rumsey and Welch's paper that is cited in the question requires the auxiliary function $beta(x)$ satisfy $beta(j) = 1+ sum_{k=1}^{n} y_k K_k (j)leq 0$ for all $j=d,d+1,dots,n$. The supplied $beta(x)$ is designed to meet this requirement by making it changing sign at value $a$, so that $beta(x)leq 0$ for $xgeq a$. This is the first point.



          The Krawtchouk polynomials already appear in the LP problem, so that there are no questions of why the might appear in the auxiliary function $beta$, but just to emphasize the importance of the Krawtchouk polynomials, they are used in discrete linear programming problems due to the positive definiteness criterion associated to them, namely that for a polynomial $$f(z)=sumlimits_{i=0}^{n} a_{i}z^{i}$$ the matrix $$f(d(x,y)), x,yinmathbb{F}^{n}$$ is non-negative definite if and only if all coefficients $lambda_{i}$ of the expansion $f(z)=sumlimits_{i=0}^{n} lambda_{i} K_{i}(z)$ over Krawtouck polynomials are nonnegative.



          Now, to keep all the coefficients $y_k$ positive as required in the LP program, it makes sense to introduce the square, but in order to preserve the sign change in $beta(x)$ at $x=a$, one divides by $(a-x)$.



          Finally, the choice of the exact expression inside the square works, because as was noted, the Christoffel-Darboux formula allows for rewriting



          $$K_t(a) K_{t+1}(x) - K_{t+1}(a)K_{t}(x)=frac{2(a-x)}{t+1}binom{n}{t}sumlimits_{k=0}^t frac{K_{k}(x)K_{k}(a)}{binom{n}{k}}$$



          so that one may check quickly that $beta(x)$ has expansion coefficients $y_{k}$ in the Krawtouck polynomials non-negative. Optimizing in $a$ and $t$ as noted give the MRRW upper bound $M_{LP}(n,d)leq binom{n}{t}frac{(n+1)^2}{2(t+1)}$.






          share|cite|improve this answer





















          • So the overall reason is that they saw the Chrisotoffel-Darboux expressions and had a clever inspiration? Maybe it's really just that. Let's see if someone has a better answer.
            – Breakfastisready
            1 hour ago










          • @Breakfastisready Yes, essentially this is what is being suggested. This tool and the fact that the function $beta(x)$ has the desired property of switching signs at $x=a$ seem to be ample motivation for choosing the above function.
            – Josiah Park
            1 hour ago










          • I see. Thank you for your answer.
            – Breakfastisready
            1 hour ago











          Your Answer





          StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
          return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function () {
          StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix) {
          StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
          });
          });
          }, "mathjax-editing");

          StackExchange.ready(function() {
          var channelOptions = {
          tags: "".split(" "),
          id: "504"
          };
          initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

          StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
          // Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
          if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
          StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
          createEditor();
          });
          }
          else {
          createEditor();
          }
          });

          function createEditor() {
          StackExchange.prepareEditor({
          heartbeatType: 'answer',
          autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
          convertImagesToLinks: true,
          noModals: true,
          showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
          reputationToPostImages: 10,
          bindNavPrevention: true,
          postfix: "",
          imageUploader: {
          brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
          contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
          allowUrls: true
          },
          noCode: true, onDemand: true,
          discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
          ,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
          });


          }
          });














          draft saved

          draft discarded


















          StackExchange.ready(
          function () {
          StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmathoverflow.net%2fquestions%2f319554%2fhow-did-they-come-up-with-the-mrrw-bound%23new-answer', 'question_page');
          }
          );

          Post as a guest















          Required, but never shown

























          1 Answer
          1






          active

          oldest

          votes








          1 Answer
          1






          active

          oldest

          votes









          active

          oldest

          votes






          active

          oldest

          votes









          3














          For linear programming type bounds it is sometimes only possible to give effective bounds (that is bounds that work and are manageable) and what is often surprising is that the primitive method often gives in fact optimal bounds.



          The LP problem from McEliece, Rodemich, Rumsey and Welch's paper that is cited in the question requires the auxiliary function $beta(x)$ satisfy $beta(j) = 1+ sum_{k=1}^{n} y_k K_k (j)leq 0$ for all $j=d,d+1,dots,n$. The supplied $beta(x)$ is designed to meet this requirement by making it changing sign at value $a$, so that $beta(x)leq 0$ for $xgeq a$. This is the first point.



          The Krawtchouk polynomials already appear in the LP problem, so that there are no questions of why the might appear in the auxiliary function $beta$, but just to emphasize the importance of the Krawtchouk polynomials, they are used in discrete linear programming problems due to the positive definiteness criterion associated to them, namely that for a polynomial $$f(z)=sumlimits_{i=0}^{n} a_{i}z^{i}$$ the matrix $$f(d(x,y)), x,yinmathbb{F}^{n}$$ is non-negative definite if and only if all coefficients $lambda_{i}$ of the expansion $f(z)=sumlimits_{i=0}^{n} lambda_{i} K_{i}(z)$ over Krawtouck polynomials are nonnegative.



          Now, to keep all the coefficients $y_k$ positive as required in the LP program, it makes sense to introduce the square, but in order to preserve the sign change in $beta(x)$ at $x=a$, one divides by $(a-x)$.



          Finally, the choice of the exact expression inside the square works, because as was noted, the Christoffel-Darboux formula allows for rewriting



          $$K_t(a) K_{t+1}(x) - K_{t+1}(a)K_{t}(x)=frac{2(a-x)}{t+1}binom{n}{t}sumlimits_{k=0}^t frac{K_{k}(x)K_{k}(a)}{binom{n}{k}}$$



          so that one may check quickly that $beta(x)$ has expansion coefficients $y_{k}$ in the Krawtouck polynomials non-negative. Optimizing in $a$ and $t$ as noted give the MRRW upper bound $M_{LP}(n,d)leq binom{n}{t}frac{(n+1)^2}{2(t+1)}$.






          share|cite|improve this answer





















          • So the overall reason is that they saw the Chrisotoffel-Darboux expressions and had a clever inspiration? Maybe it's really just that. Let's see if someone has a better answer.
            – Breakfastisready
            1 hour ago










          • @Breakfastisready Yes, essentially this is what is being suggested. This tool and the fact that the function $beta(x)$ has the desired property of switching signs at $x=a$ seem to be ample motivation for choosing the above function.
            – Josiah Park
            1 hour ago










          • I see. Thank you for your answer.
            – Breakfastisready
            1 hour ago
















          3














          For linear programming type bounds it is sometimes only possible to give effective bounds (that is bounds that work and are manageable) and what is often surprising is that the primitive method often gives in fact optimal bounds.



          The LP problem from McEliece, Rodemich, Rumsey and Welch's paper that is cited in the question requires the auxiliary function $beta(x)$ satisfy $beta(j) = 1+ sum_{k=1}^{n} y_k K_k (j)leq 0$ for all $j=d,d+1,dots,n$. The supplied $beta(x)$ is designed to meet this requirement by making it changing sign at value $a$, so that $beta(x)leq 0$ for $xgeq a$. This is the first point.



          The Krawtchouk polynomials already appear in the LP problem, so that there are no questions of why the might appear in the auxiliary function $beta$, but just to emphasize the importance of the Krawtchouk polynomials, they are used in discrete linear programming problems due to the positive definiteness criterion associated to them, namely that for a polynomial $$f(z)=sumlimits_{i=0}^{n} a_{i}z^{i}$$ the matrix $$f(d(x,y)), x,yinmathbb{F}^{n}$$ is non-negative definite if and only if all coefficients $lambda_{i}$ of the expansion $f(z)=sumlimits_{i=0}^{n} lambda_{i} K_{i}(z)$ over Krawtouck polynomials are nonnegative.



          Now, to keep all the coefficients $y_k$ positive as required in the LP program, it makes sense to introduce the square, but in order to preserve the sign change in $beta(x)$ at $x=a$, one divides by $(a-x)$.



          Finally, the choice of the exact expression inside the square works, because as was noted, the Christoffel-Darboux formula allows for rewriting



          $$K_t(a) K_{t+1}(x) - K_{t+1}(a)K_{t}(x)=frac{2(a-x)}{t+1}binom{n}{t}sumlimits_{k=0}^t frac{K_{k}(x)K_{k}(a)}{binom{n}{k}}$$



          so that one may check quickly that $beta(x)$ has expansion coefficients $y_{k}$ in the Krawtouck polynomials non-negative. Optimizing in $a$ and $t$ as noted give the MRRW upper bound $M_{LP}(n,d)leq binom{n}{t}frac{(n+1)^2}{2(t+1)}$.






          share|cite|improve this answer





















          • So the overall reason is that they saw the Chrisotoffel-Darboux expressions and had a clever inspiration? Maybe it's really just that. Let's see if someone has a better answer.
            – Breakfastisready
            1 hour ago










          • @Breakfastisready Yes, essentially this is what is being suggested. This tool and the fact that the function $beta(x)$ has the desired property of switching signs at $x=a$ seem to be ample motivation for choosing the above function.
            – Josiah Park
            1 hour ago










          • I see. Thank you for your answer.
            – Breakfastisready
            1 hour ago














          3












          3








          3






          For linear programming type bounds it is sometimes only possible to give effective bounds (that is bounds that work and are manageable) and what is often surprising is that the primitive method often gives in fact optimal bounds.



          The LP problem from McEliece, Rodemich, Rumsey and Welch's paper that is cited in the question requires the auxiliary function $beta(x)$ satisfy $beta(j) = 1+ sum_{k=1}^{n} y_k K_k (j)leq 0$ for all $j=d,d+1,dots,n$. The supplied $beta(x)$ is designed to meet this requirement by making it changing sign at value $a$, so that $beta(x)leq 0$ for $xgeq a$. This is the first point.



          The Krawtchouk polynomials already appear in the LP problem, so that there are no questions of why the might appear in the auxiliary function $beta$, but just to emphasize the importance of the Krawtchouk polynomials, they are used in discrete linear programming problems due to the positive definiteness criterion associated to them, namely that for a polynomial $$f(z)=sumlimits_{i=0}^{n} a_{i}z^{i}$$ the matrix $$f(d(x,y)), x,yinmathbb{F}^{n}$$ is non-negative definite if and only if all coefficients $lambda_{i}$ of the expansion $f(z)=sumlimits_{i=0}^{n} lambda_{i} K_{i}(z)$ over Krawtouck polynomials are nonnegative.



          Now, to keep all the coefficients $y_k$ positive as required in the LP program, it makes sense to introduce the square, but in order to preserve the sign change in $beta(x)$ at $x=a$, one divides by $(a-x)$.



          Finally, the choice of the exact expression inside the square works, because as was noted, the Christoffel-Darboux formula allows for rewriting



          $$K_t(a) K_{t+1}(x) - K_{t+1}(a)K_{t}(x)=frac{2(a-x)}{t+1}binom{n}{t}sumlimits_{k=0}^t frac{K_{k}(x)K_{k}(a)}{binom{n}{k}}$$



          so that one may check quickly that $beta(x)$ has expansion coefficients $y_{k}$ in the Krawtouck polynomials non-negative. Optimizing in $a$ and $t$ as noted give the MRRW upper bound $M_{LP}(n,d)leq binom{n}{t}frac{(n+1)^2}{2(t+1)}$.






          share|cite|improve this answer












          For linear programming type bounds it is sometimes only possible to give effective bounds (that is bounds that work and are manageable) and what is often surprising is that the primitive method often gives in fact optimal bounds.



          The LP problem from McEliece, Rodemich, Rumsey and Welch's paper that is cited in the question requires the auxiliary function $beta(x)$ satisfy $beta(j) = 1+ sum_{k=1}^{n} y_k K_k (j)leq 0$ for all $j=d,d+1,dots,n$. The supplied $beta(x)$ is designed to meet this requirement by making it changing sign at value $a$, so that $beta(x)leq 0$ for $xgeq a$. This is the first point.



          The Krawtchouk polynomials already appear in the LP problem, so that there are no questions of why the might appear in the auxiliary function $beta$, but just to emphasize the importance of the Krawtchouk polynomials, they are used in discrete linear programming problems due to the positive definiteness criterion associated to them, namely that for a polynomial $$f(z)=sumlimits_{i=0}^{n} a_{i}z^{i}$$ the matrix $$f(d(x,y)), x,yinmathbb{F}^{n}$$ is non-negative definite if and only if all coefficients $lambda_{i}$ of the expansion $f(z)=sumlimits_{i=0}^{n} lambda_{i} K_{i}(z)$ over Krawtouck polynomials are nonnegative.



          Now, to keep all the coefficients $y_k$ positive as required in the LP program, it makes sense to introduce the square, but in order to preserve the sign change in $beta(x)$ at $x=a$, one divides by $(a-x)$.



          Finally, the choice of the exact expression inside the square works, because as was noted, the Christoffel-Darboux formula allows for rewriting



          $$K_t(a) K_{t+1}(x) - K_{t+1}(a)K_{t}(x)=frac{2(a-x)}{t+1}binom{n}{t}sumlimits_{k=0}^t frac{K_{k}(x)K_{k}(a)}{binom{n}{k}}$$



          so that one may check quickly that $beta(x)$ has expansion coefficients $y_{k}$ in the Krawtouck polynomials non-negative. Optimizing in $a$ and $t$ as noted give the MRRW upper bound $M_{LP}(n,d)leq binom{n}{t}frac{(n+1)^2}{2(t+1)}$.







          share|cite|improve this answer












          share|cite|improve this answer



          share|cite|improve this answer










          answered 2 hours ago









          Josiah Park

          942318




          942318












          • So the overall reason is that they saw the Chrisotoffel-Darboux expressions and had a clever inspiration? Maybe it's really just that. Let's see if someone has a better answer.
            – Breakfastisready
            1 hour ago










          • @Breakfastisready Yes, essentially this is what is being suggested. This tool and the fact that the function $beta(x)$ has the desired property of switching signs at $x=a$ seem to be ample motivation for choosing the above function.
            – Josiah Park
            1 hour ago










          • I see. Thank you for your answer.
            – Breakfastisready
            1 hour ago


















          • So the overall reason is that they saw the Chrisotoffel-Darboux expressions and had a clever inspiration? Maybe it's really just that. Let's see if someone has a better answer.
            – Breakfastisready
            1 hour ago










          • @Breakfastisready Yes, essentially this is what is being suggested. This tool and the fact that the function $beta(x)$ has the desired property of switching signs at $x=a$ seem to be ample motivation for choosing the above function.
            – Josiah Park
            1 hour ago










          • I see. Thank you for your answer.
            – Breakfastisready
            1 hour ago
















          So the overall reason is that they saw the Chrisotoffel-Darboux expressions and had a clever inspiration? Maybe it's really just that. Let's see if someone has a better answer.
          – Breakfastisready
          1 hour ago




          So the overall reason is that they saw the Chrisotoffel-Darboux expressions and had a clever inspiration? Maybe it's really just that. Let's see if someone has a better answer.
          – Breakfastisready
          1 hour ago












          @Breakfastisready Yes, essentially this is what is being suggested. This tool and the fact that the function $beta(x)$ has the desired property of switching signs at $x=a$ seem to be ample motivation for choosing the above function.
          – Josiah Park
          1 hour ago




          @Breakfastisready Yes, essentially this is what is being suggested. This tool and the fact that the function $beta(x)$ has the desired property of switching signs at $x=a$ seem to be ample motivation for choosing the above function.
          – Josiah Park
          1 hour ago












          I see. Thank you for your answer.
          – Breakfastisready
          1 hour ago




          I see. Thank you for your answer.
          – Breakfastisready
          1 hour ago


















          draft saved

          draft discarded




















































          Thanks for contributing an answer to MathOverflow!


          • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

          But avoid



          • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

          • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.


          Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.


          To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.





          Some of your past answers have not been well-received, and you're in danger of being blocked from answering.


          Please pay close attention to the following guidance:


          • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

          But avoid



          • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

          • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.


          To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




          draft saved


          draft discarded














          StackExchange.ready(
          function () {
          StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmathoverflow.net%2fquestions%2f319554%2fhow-did-they-come-up-with-the-mrrw-bound%23new-answer', 'question_page');
          }
          );

          Post as a guest















          Required, but never shown





















































          Required, but never shown














          Required, but never shown












          Required, but never shown







          Required, but never shown

































          Required, but never shown














          Required, but never shown












          Required, but never shown







          Required, but never shown







          Popular posts from this blog

          Plaza Victoria

          Puebla de Zaragoza

          Musa