Skip to main content
added 147 characters in body; edited title
Source Link
Sam Hopkins
  • 24.2k
  • 5
  • 97
  • 171

Why can we onlynot find bounds as opposed to exact values for sizes of cap sets for $d>6$?

I've been reading about cap sets in $\mathbb{F}_3^d $ over the past couple of days and wondered why we can only find bounds, as opposed to exact values, for (maximum) sizes of cap sets for $d>6$. The proofs are somewhat unclear to me (as a physics student) so I couldn't extrapolate from there.

The largest sizes of cap sets in $\mathbb{F}_3^d$ for $d \leq 6$ are listed at https://oeis.org/A090245.

Why can we only find bounds as opposed to exact values for sizes of cap sets for $d>6$?

I've been reading about cap sets in $\mathbb{F}_3^d $ over the past couple of days and wondered why we can only find bounds for sizes of cap sets for $d>6$. The proofs are somewhat unclear to me (as a physics student) so I couldn't extrapolate from there.

Why can we not find exact values for sizes of cap sets for $d>6$?

I've been reading about cap sets in $\mathbb{F}_3^d $ over the past couple of days and wondered why we can only find bounds, as opposed to exact values, for (maximum) sizes of cap sets for $d>6$. The proofs are somewhat unclear to me (as a physics student) so I couldn't extrapolate from there.

The largest sizes of cap sets in $\mathbb{F}_3^d$ for $d \leq 6$ are listed at https://oeis.org/A090245.

edited tags
Link
GH from MO
  • 105.2k
  • 8
  • 292
  • 398
edited title
Link
RobPratt
  • 5.4k
  • 1
  • 15
  • 25

Why can we only find bounds as opposed to exact values for sizes of cap sets for d>6$d>6$?

Fully Math Jaxed
Source Link
Daniele Tampieri
  • 6.4k
  • 7
  • 30
  • 45
Loading
edited title
Link
Loading
added 21 characters in body
Source Link
Loading
Source Link
Loading