arXiv++ Combinatorics

Let $\mathcal{P}$ be a poset on $[n]$, $\mathcal{I}(\mathcal{P})$ the set of order ideals of $\mathcal{P}$ and $E$ an equivalence relation on $\mathcal{I}(\mathcal{P})$. The concepts of the dual relation $E^*$ of an equivalence relation $E$, the $E$-weight (resp. $E^*$-weight) distribution of a linear poset code (resp. its dual poset code) and a MacWilliams-type equivalence relation are introduced. We give a characterization for a MacWilliams-type equivalence relation in terms of MacWilliams-type identities for a linear poset code. Three kinds of equivalence relations on $\mathcal{I}(\mathcal{P})$ which are of MacWilliams-type are found, i.e., $(i)$ we show that every equivalence relation defined by the automorphism of $\mathcal{P}$ is a MacWilliams-type; $(ii)$ we provide a new characterization for poset structures when the equivalence relation defined by the same cardinality on $\mathcal{I}(\mathcal{P})$ becomes a MacWilliams-type; $(iii)$ we also give necessary and sufficient conditions for poset structures in which the equivalence relation defined by the order-isomorphism on $\mathcal{I}(\mathcal{P})$ is a MacWilliams-type.

A $q$-ary $t$-covering array is an $m \times n$ matrix with entries from $\{0, 1, ..., q-1\}$ with the property that for any $t$ column positions, all $q^t$ possible vectors of length $t$ occur at least once. One wishes to minimize $m$ for given $t$ and $n$, or maximize $n$ for given $t$ and $m$. For $t = 2$ and $q = 2$, it is completely solved by Rényi, Katona, and Kleitman and Spencer. They also show that maximal binary 2-covering arrays are uniquely determined. Roux found the lower bound of $m$ for a general $t, n$, and $q$. In this article, we show that $m \times n$ binary 2-covering arrays under some constraints on $m$ and $n$ come from the maximal covering arrays. We also improve the lower bound of Roux for $t = 3$ and $q = 2$, and show that some binary 3 or 4-covering arrays are uniquely determined.

We improve the upper bound of Levenshtein for the cardinality of a code of length 4 capable of correcting single deletions over an alphabet of even size. We also illustrate that the new upper bound is sharp. Furthermore we will construct an optimal perfect code capable of correcting single deletions for the same parameters.