Paper detail

Unsatisfiability Proofs for Weight 16 Codewords in Lam's Problem

In the 1970s and 1980s, searches performed by L. Carter, C. Lam, L. Thiel, and S. Swiercz showed that projective planes of order ten with weight 16 codewords do not exist. These searches required highly specialized and optimized computer programs and required about 2,000 hours of computing time on mainframe and supermini computers. In 2011, these searches were verified by D. Roy using an optimized C program and 16,000 hours on a cluster of desktop machines. We performed a verification of these searches by reducing the problem to the Boolean satisfiability problem (SAT). Our verification uses the cube-and-conquer SAT solving paradigm, symmetry breaking techniques using the computer algebra system Maple, and a result of Carter that there are ten nonisomorphic cases to check. Our searches completed in about 30 hours on a desktop machine and produced nonexistence proofs of about 1 terabyte in the DRAT (deletion resolution asymmetric tautology) format.

preprint2020arXivOpen access
0citations
0reviews
0saves
Nocode
Nodataset
0institutions

Next steps

Decide what to do with this paper

Use like or dislike for the fast social read. The more specific scholarly feedback stays available below when needed.

Log in to curate

Reading frame

Keep the important context close to the paper

Keep the important signals around this paper in one place: votes, save state, collection context, reviews and the metadata you need before deciding what to do next.

Institutions

Add specific reaction

Move through the context

Research map

Open full explorer

Move through nearby people, institutions, topics and adjacent work without leaving the paper page.

Building this graph slice

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Structured reviews

0 review(s)

ContributeLeave structured feedbackUse the review template when you have a concrete strength, concern or method question.Open review form

No structured reviews yet. High-signal critique starts here.

Work discussion

0 comment(s)

DiscussAdd a high-signal commentKeep quick notes, caveats and replication pointers separate from formal reviews.Open comment form

No discussion yet. The first strong comment sets the tone.