1: \documentclass[12pt]{article}
2: \usepackage{amssymb}
3: \usepackage{amsmath}
4: \usepackage{theorem}
5: %\usepackage{amsthm}
6: \usepackage{latexsym}
7: %\usepackage{showkeys}
8: \usepackage{amscd}
9: %\usepackage[small,nohug,heads=littlevee]{diagrams}
10: %\diagramstyle[labelstyle=\scriptstyle]
11: %\textwidth 7in\oddsidemargin-.7cm\evensidemargin-.7cm
12: %\textheight 8.8in\topmargin -0.5in%
13: \textwidth 6.5in\oddsidemargin 0in
14: \textheight 9in\topmargin -0.5in
15: \renewcommand{\baselinestretch}{1.1}
16: %\parindent 0mm
17: %\parskip 2ex minus 0.2ex
18: %\reversemarginpar
19: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
20: \theoremheaderfont{\bf} %\theoremstyle{break}
21: \theorembodyfont{\sl}
22: \newtheorem{theo}{Theorem}[section]
23: {\theorembodyfont{\rm} \newtheorem{defi}[theo]{Definition}}
24: {\theorembodyfont{\rm} \newtheorem{exa}[theo]{Example}}
25: {\theorembodyfont{\rm} \newtheorem{rem}[theo]{Remark}}
26: {\theorembodyfont{\rm} \newtheorem{notation}[theo]{Notation}}
27: {\theorembodyfont{\rm} \newtheorem{que}[theo]{Question}}
28: \newtheorem{prop}[theo]{Proposition}
29: \newtheorem{cor}[theo]{Corollary}
30: \newtheorem{lemma}[theo]{Lemma}
31: \newtheorem{conjecture}[theo]{Conjecture}
32: \newenvironment{completion}{{\sc Completion of the proof of
33: theorem{\footnotesize{~\ref{O}}}:}}{\mbox{}\hfill$\Box$\par}
34: \newenvironment{proof}{{\sc Proof:}}{\mbox{}\hfill$\Box$\par}
35: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
36: \newcommand{\eqr}[1]{~\mbox{$(${\rm \ref{#1}}$)$}}
37: \newcommand{\Section}[1]{\section{#1}\setcounter{equation}{0}}
38: \renewcommand{\theequation}{\thesection.\arabic{equation}}
39: \newcommand{\comment}[1]{\vspace{5mm}\hspace{15mm}
40: \begin{minipage}{5in}\baselineskip 7mm\large
41: {{\bf Comment/Question: } #1}
42: \end{minipage}\vspace{5mm}
43: \typeout{Here is a comment line}}
44: \newcommand{\junk}[1]{}
45: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
46: \newcommand{\tx}{\textstyle}
47: \newcommand{\N}{{\mathbb N}}
48: \newcommand{\F}{{\mathbb F}}
49: \newcommand{\K}{{\mathbb K}}
50: \newcommand{\Z}{{\mathbb Z}}
51: \newcommand{\C}{{\mathcal C}}
52: \renewcommand{\H}{{\mathcal H}}
53: \newcommand{\wt}{{\rm wt}}
54: \newcommand{\rank}{{\rm rank}\,}
55: \newcommand{\spann}{\mbox{\rm span}}
56: \newcommand{\dfree}{\mbox{$d_{\mbox{\rm\tiny free}}$}}
57: \newcommand{\delay}[1]{\mbox{$\overleftarrow{#1}$}}
58: \newcommand{\T}{\mbox{$\!^{\sf T}$}}
59: \newcommand{\floor}[1]{\mbox{$\lfloor{#1}\rfloor$}}
60: \newcommand{\ceiling}[1]{\mbox{$\lceil{#1}\rceil$}}
61: \newcommand{\FDlaurent}{\mbox{$\F(\!(D)\!)$}}
62: \newcommand{\zwei}[2]{\left[ \begin{array}{c}
63: #1 \\ #2 \end{array} \right]}
64: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
65: \newenvironment{liste}{\begin{list}{--\hfill}{\topsep-1.4ex \labelwidth.4cm
66: \leftmargin.5cm \labelsep.1cm \rightmargin0cm \parsep0ex \itemsep.6ex
67: \partopsep1.4ex}}{\end{list}}
68: \newcounter{abc}
69: \newenvironment{romanlist}{\begin{list}{(\roman{abc})\hfill}{\usecounter{abc}
70: \topsep.5ex \labelwidth.6cm \leftmargin.7cm \labelsep.1cm
71: \rightmargin0cm \parsep0ex \itemsep.6ex
72: \partopsep1.6ex}}{\end{list}}
73: \newenvironment{alphalist}{\begin{list}{(\alph{abc})\hfill}{\usecounter{abc}
74: \topsep.5ex \labelwidth.6cm \leftmargin.7cm \labelsep.1cm
75: \rightmargin0cm \parsep0ex \itemsep.6ex
76: \partopsep1.6ex}}{\end{list}}
77: \newenvironment{arabiclist}{\begin{list}{(\arabic{abc})\hfill}{\usecounter{abc}
78: \topsep.5ex \labelwidth.6cm \leftmargin.7cm \labelsep.1cm
79: \rightmargin0cm \parsep0ex \itemsep.6ex
80: \partopsep1.6ex}}{\end{list}}
81: \newenvironment{algo}{\begin{list}{{\rmfamily\bf
82: Step~\arabic{abc}:}\hfill}{\usecounter{abc}
83: \topsep.5ex \labelwidth1.7cm \leftmargin1.7cm \labelsep0cm
84: \rightmargin0cm \parsep0ex \itemsep.6ex
85: \partopsep1.6ex}}{\end{list}}
86: \newcommand{\vier}[4]{\left[ \begin{array}{cc}
87: #1 & #2 \\ #3 & #4 \end{array} \right]}
88:
89: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
90: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
91: \title{Superregular Matrices and the Construction of Convolutional Codes having
92: a Maximum Distance Profile}
93:
94: \author{
95: Ryan Hutchinson\\
96: {\small Mathematics Institute}\vspace{-2mm}\\
97: {\small University of Z\"urich}\vspace{-2mm}\\
98: {\small Z\"urich, Switzerland}\vspace{-2mm}\\
99: {\small {\em e-mail:} rhutchin@math.unizh.ch}
100: \and
101: Roxana Smarandache\thanks{On leave at the University of Notre Dame, Department of Mathematics, Notre Dame, IN 46556.} \\
102: {\small Department of Mathematics and Statistics}\vspace{-2mm}\\
103: {\small San Diego State University}\vspace{-2mm}\\
104: {\small San Diego, CA 92182-7720, USA}\vspace{-2mm}\\
105: {\small {\em e-mail:} rsmarand@sciences.sdsu.edu }
106: \and
107: Jochen Trumpf\thanks{Currently seconded to National ICT Australia Limited, which is funded by the Australian
108: Government's Department of Communications, Information Technology and the Arts and the Australian Research Council
109: through Backing Australia's Ability and the ICT Centre of Excellence Program.} \\
110: {\small Department of Information Engineering, RSISE}\vspace{-2mm}\\
111: {\small The Australian National University}\vspace{-2mm}\\
112: {\small Canberra ACT 0200, Australia}\vspace{-2mm}\\
113: {\small {\em e-mail:} Jochen.Trumpf@anu.edu.au}
114: }
115: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
116: \begin{document}
117: \maketitle
118: \begin{abstract} Superregular matrices are a class of lower triangular Toeplitz
119: matrices that arise in the context of constructing convolutional codes having a
120: maximum distance profile. These matrices are characterized by the property that
121: no submatrix has a zero determinant unless it is trivially zero due to the lower triangular structure.
122: In this paper, we discuss how superregular matrices may be used to construct
123: codes having a maximum distance profile. We also introduce group actions
124: that preserve the superregularity property and present an upper bound on the
125: minimum size a finite field must have in order that a superregular matrix of a
126: given size can exist over that field.
127: \\
128:
129: \noindent
130: {\bf Keywords:} convolutional codes, column distances, maximum distance profile,
131: superregular matrices, partial realization problem
132: \end{abstract}
133:
134: \section{Introduction}
135: Convolutional codes are a class of error-correcting codes that have enjoyed
136: wide use in practical applications due to the existence of efficient
137: non-algebraic decoding algorithms. From a mathematical standpoint, however, the
138: situation is still rather unsatisfying, as there are relatively few algebraic
139: constructions of convolutional codes with provably good distance properties or
140: which can be algebraically decoded. Recent years have seen interesting
141: developments in the algebraic theory of convolutional codes: the papers~\cite{Heide2,Heide4,Heide5,gl02u,14}
142: extend the notion of cyclicity familiar from block code theory to
143: convolutional codes; the papers~\cite{Heide3,Heide6} investigate
144: weight enumerators and the existence of a MacWilliams Identity for convolutional
145: codes; the paper~\cite{ro99a} uses methods from
146: systems theory to construct convolutional codes having a designed distance; and the papers~\cite{Heide1,gl03r,12,ro99a1,sm01a} provide results concerning
147: convolutional codes having certain maximal distance properties. Motivated by existence results appearing in certain members of this last set of papers, we
148: decided to investigate so-called {\em superregular matrices}. These matrices arise when
149: one considers the problem of constructing convolutional codes having a maximum
150: distance profile.
151:
152: The remainder of this paper is structured as follows. In Section 2, we give a
153: brief introduction to convolutional codes, explain the maximal distance
154: properties mentioned above, and define the superregularity property. In Section
155: 3, we discuss how superregular matrices may be used to construct codes having a
156: maximum distance profile. In Section 4, we introduce group actions that
157: preserve the superregularity property; these actions made it possible to reduce
158: the computation time necessary for performing searches for superregular matrices. Finally, in Section 5, we present an upper bound on
159: the minimum field size required for a superregular matrix of a given size to
160: exist.
161:
162: \section{Preliminaries}
163: In this section, we review the theory of convolutional codes relevant to the
164: presented work. Let $k$ and $n$ be positive integers with $k<n$. Let $\F$ be a
165: finite field of characteristic $p$, where $p$ is a prime number.
166: \begin{defi}
167: A {\em convolutional code} $\mathcal{C}$ of {\em rate} $k/n$ is a
168: rank-$k$ submodule of the free module $(\F [s])^n$.
169: \end{defi}
170: Since $\F [s]$ is a principal ideal domain, $\C$ is a free module and has a well-defined rank. It follows that a convolutional code may be viewed
171: as the column space of an $n\times k$
172: polynomial matrix $G(s)$, the columns of which form an $\F [s]$-basis for
173: $\mathcal{C}$. As a set, we have
174: $$
175: \C = \{v(s)=G(s)u(s) \in (\F [s])^n \, | \, u(s)\in (\F [s])^k\}.
176: $$ $G(s)$ is called a {\em generator matrix} for $\mathcal{C}$, the
177: $u(s)$ are called {\em information vectors}, and the $v(s)$ are called
178: {\em code vectors} or {\em codewords}. Two generator matrices
179: $G_1(s)$ and $G_2(s)$ having full column rank generate the same code
180: if and only if there exists a $k\times k$ unimodular matrix $U(s)$
181: such that $G_1(s)=G_2(s)U(s)$.
182:
183: The columns of $G(s)$ may be thought of as polynomials with
184: coefficients in $\F ^n$; we refer to the degrees of these polynomials
185: as the {\em column degrees} of $G(s)$ and denote the degree of the
186: $i$th column by $\mu_i$. Let $m:=\max_{1\leq i\leq k}\{ \mu _i\}$.
187: Thinking of $(\F [s])^{(n\times k)}$ as $\F ^{(n\times k)}[s]$, we may then expand $G(s)$ into a matrix polynomial,
188: $$
189: G(s)=G_0 + G_1s + \cdots + G_ms^m,
190: $$ where $G_i$ is an $n\times k$ matrix over $\F$, the entries of
191: which are the coefficients of $s^i$ in $G(s)$. Similarly, thinking of $(\F [s])^k$ as $\F ^k[s]$, we may expand
192: $u(s)
193: \in (\F [s])^k$ of degree $l$ into a vector
194: polynomial:
195: $$
196: u(s)=u_0 + u_1s + \cdots + u_ls^l.
197: $$
198: We may then represent the encoding process with the multiplication
199: $$
200: \left[\begin{array}{c}
201: v_0\\
202: v_1\\
203: \vdots \\
204: v_{l+m}
205: \end{array}\right]
206: =
207: \left[\begin{array}{ccccc}
208: G_0 & 0 & \cdots & \cdots & 0\\
209: G_1 & G_0 & \ddots & & \vdots\\
210: \vdots & G_1 & \ddots & \ddots & \vdots\\
211: G_{m-1} & \vdots & \ddots & \ddots & 0 \\
212: G_m & G_{m-1} & & \ddots & G_0\\
213: 0 & G_m & \ddots & & G_1\\
214: \vdots & \ddots & \ddots & \ddots & \vdots\\
215: \vdots & & \ddots & \ddots & G_{m-1}\\
216: 0 & \cdots & \cdots & 0 & G_m
217: \end{array}\right]
218: \left[\begin{array}{c}
219: u_0\\
220: u_1\\
221: \vdots \\
222: u_l
223: \end{array}\right],
224: $$ where 0 represents the $n\times k$ matrix with all entries zero.
225: The large matrix in the middle is called a {\em sliding generator
226: matrix}. From this representation, we see the origin of the name
227: convolutional code: the vector coefficients of the information vector
228: are convoluted with the matrix coefficients of $G(s)$ to form the
229: codewords.
230:
231: A generator matrix $G(s)$ is called {\em basic} if the only common
232: divisors of the determinants of its $k\times k$ submatrices belong to
233: $\F\, \backslash \{0\}$. There are several characterizations of this
234: property; more details may be found in~\cite{gl02u,14,15}. We note
235: here two of these characterizations. The first is that a
236: convolutional code generated by a basic generator matrix is a direct
237: summand of $\F ^n[s]$. The second is that there
238: exists a basic $n\times (n-k)$ matrix over $\F [s]$, $H(s)$, such that
239: $\C$ is the right $\F [s]$-kernel of $H^T(s)$. Thus, an observable
240: code may also be described as the set
241: $$
242: \C = \{ v(s)\in (\F [s])^n \, | \, H^T(s)v(s) = [0\,0\cdots0]^T\in (\F [s])^k \}
243: $$
244: $H(s)$ is called a {\em parity check matrix} of $\C$. As with the generator
245: matrix, one may expand H(s) as the sum
246: $$
247: H(s) = H_0 + H_1s + \cdots + H_{m'}s^{m'},
248: $$ where $m'$ is the largest integer such that $H_{m'} \neq 0$. A
249: convolutional code $\mathcal{C}$ is called {\em observable} if one
250: (and hence every) generator matrix of $\mathcal{C}$ is basic.
251:
252: The {\em high-order coefficient matrix} $G_{\infty}$ of
253: $G(s)$ is a matrix, the $i$th column of which is the vector coefficient of $s^{\mu_i}$ in
254: column $i$.
255: A basic generator matrix for which $G_{\infty}$ has full rank is
256: called {\em minimal}.
257: An important invariant of a convolutional code is its {\em complexity}, defined as follows:
258: \begin{defi}
259: The {\em complexity} $\delta$ of a convolutional code $\mathcal{C}$ is
260: the maximum of the degrees of the (polynomial) determinants of the $k\times k$
261: submatrices of any generator matrix of $\mathcal{C}$.
262: \end{defi}
263: This definition makes sense, as the equivalence relation described above
264: preserves the degrees of these determinants. A code of rate $k/n$ and complexity $\delta$
265: will also be referred to as an $(n,k,\delta)$-code. If the code is observable, the
266: complexity is normally referred to as the {\em degree} of the code;
267: see~\cite{ro99a1} for the geometric motivation for this terminology.
268:
269: In general, $G_{\infty}$ need not have full rank; in this case,
270: $\sum_{i=1}^k \mu_i >\delta$. It is shown in~\cite{17} that it is
271: always possible to find a unimodular matrix $U(s)$ such that
272: $G(s)U(s)$ has a full-rank high-order coefficient matrix and a set
273: $\{\nu_i\}_{i=1}^k$ of column degrees satisfying
274: $\nu_1\leq\nu_2\leq\cdots\leq\nu_k$ and $\sum_{i=1}^k \nu_i =\delta$.
275: In this case, the column degrees are invariants of the code generated
276: by $G(s)$ and are called the {\em column indices} or the {\em
277: Kronecker indices} of the code. If $G(s)$ is minimal, the column
278: degrees $\nu_1\leq\nu_2\leq\cdots\leq\nu_k$ mentioned above are called
279: the {\em minimal column indices} or the {\em Forney indices} of the
280: code. For the remainder of the paper, we assume all codes to be
281: observable and generator matrices to be minimal.
282:
283: The following truncated sliding generator matrices $G^c_j\in\F^{(j+1)n\times(j+1)k}$
284: and parity check matrices $H^c_j\in\F^{(j+1)n\times(j+1)(n-k)}$ will be of
285: importance in this work. These are defined for each $j\in \N _0$ as
286: \begin{equation}\label{e-Gcj}
287: \begin{array}{rcl}
288: G^c_j := &\begin{bmatrix}
289: G_0& 0& \cdots &0\\
290: G_1& G_0& \ddots &\vdots\\
291: \vdots & \vdots & \ddots &0\\
292: G_j&G_{j-1}& \cdots&G_0
293: \end{bmatrix}\,\,\mbox{and}\,\,
294: H^c_j := \begin{bmatrix}
295: H_0& H_1&\cdots&H_j \\
296: 0& H_0& \cdots & H_{j-1} \\
297: \vdots& \ddots & \ddots &\vdots\\
298: 0&\cdots& 0 &H_0
299: \end{bmatrix},
300: \end{array}
301: \end{equation}
302: where $G_j=0$ ($H_j=0$) if $j>m$ ($j>m'$). The relation $H^T(s)G(s) =
303: 0$ immediately implies that $(H^c_j)^TG^c_j = 0$ for all $j\in \N _0$.
304:
305: We turn now to some distance notions for convolutional codes.
306: \begin{defi}
307: Let $x \in \F ^n$. The {\em Hamming weight} of $x$, wt($x$), is the
308: number of nonzero components of $x$. Let $v(s)\in \F ^n[s]$ be given
309: by $v(s):=v_0 + v_1s + \cdots + v_ls^l$ for some nonnegative integer
310: $l$. The {\em weight} of $v(s)$, wt($v(s)$), is the sum of the
311: weights of its $\F ^n$-coefficients:
312: $$
313: \mbox{wt}(v(s)):=\sum_{i=0}^l\mbox{wt}(v_i).
314: $$
315: \end{defi}
316: We then have
317: \begin{defi}
318: Let $\C$ be an $(n,k,\delta)$-code. Then, the {\em free distance} of
319: $\C$, $d_{free}(\C)$, is
320: $$
321: d_{free}(\C):=\min_{v(s)\in \mathcal{C}}\{\mbox{wt}(v(s)) \, | \, v(s) \not = 0\}.
322: $$
323: \end{defi}
324: The following theorem gives an upper bound for how large the free
325: distance of an $(n,k,\delta)$-code can be:
326: \begin{theo}\label{Singleton}
327: Let $\C$ be an $(n,k,\delta)$-code. Then, $d_{free}(\C)$ satisfies
328: $$
329: d_{free}(\C)\leq (n-k)\Big(\Big\lfloor\frac {\delta}{k} \Big\rfloor +1\Big) +\delta +1.
330: $$
331: \end{theo}
332: This bound is proven in~\cite{ro99a1}. It is known as the {\em
333: generalized Singleton bound}. The reason for this is that a
334: convolutional code of complexity 0 is a block code, as it has a
335: generator matrix with all entries in $\F$. If we set $\delta =0$ in
336: the above expression, it reduces to the Singleton bound from the
337: theory of block codes. In analogy with the block code case,
338: convolutional codes having a free distance meeting the generalized
339: Singleton bound are called {\em maximum distance separable} ({\em
340: MDS}).
341:
342: The free distance is a global distance measure and determines the
343: maximum number of errors that may be introduced to a codeword without
344: jeopardizing correct decoding. A more local distance measure, relevant
345: to the performance of {\em sequential decoding algorithms}
346: (see, for example,~\cite{Costello}), is given by column distances.
347: These are defined as follows:
348: \begin{defi}
349: Let $\mathcal{C}$ be a convolutional code. For $j\in \N _0$ and a
350: polynomial vector $v(s)\in \F ^n[s]$ of degree $l$, set
351: $v_{[0,j]}(s):=v_0+v_1s+\cdots +v_js^j$ (where $v_j=0$ if $j>l$). Then, the {\em $j$th column
352: distance} of $\mathcal{C}$, $d_j^c(\mathcal{C})$, is defined as
353: $$
354: d_j^c(\mathcal{C}):=\min _{v(s)\in \mathcal{C}}\{\wt(v_{[0,j]}(s)) \,
355: | \, v_0\neq 0 \}.
356: $$
357: Because of the assumption that $\C$ is observable, the fact that $v_0 \neq 0$
358: means that the minimum is taken over codewords resulting from information
359: vectors with $u_0 \neq 0$.
360: It is easy to see that the column distances satisfy
361: \begin{equation}
362: \label{e-dist.inequ}
363: d^c_0(\mathcal{C})\leq d^c_1(\mathcal{C})\leq d^c_2(\mathcal{C})\ldots
364: \leq \lim_{j\rightarrow\infty}d^c_j(\mathcal{C})=d_{free}(\C).
365: \end{equation}
366: \end{defi}
367: The $(m +1)$-tuple of numbers $(d^c_0(\C), d^c_1(\C),\ldots,d^c_m(\C))$ is called the
368: {\em column distance profile} of the code~\cite[p. 112]{jo99}.
369:
370: The following theorem gives an upper bound for the $j$th column distance:
371: \begin{theo} \label{P-dcj.bound}
372: Let $\mathcal{C}$ be an $(n,k,\delta)$-code. For every $j\in \N _0$, we have
373: \[
374: d_j^c(\mathcal{C})\leq(n-k)(j+1)+1.
375: \]
376: If $d_j^c(\mathcal{C})=(n-k)(j+1)+1$ for some $j$, then $d_i^c(\mathcal{C})=(n-k)(i+1)+1$
377: when $i\leq j$.
378: \end{theo}
379: A proof may be found in~\cite{gl03r}. By considering the bound in
380: Theorem~\ref{Singleton}, one easily sees that the largest integer for
381: which the upper bound in Theorem~\ref{P-dcj.bound} can be attained is
382: $L:=\lfloor\frac{\delta}{k}\rfloor +
383: \lfloor\frac{\delta}{n-k}\rfloor$. An $(n,k,\delta)$-code $\C$ is
384: said to be {\em maximum distance profile} ({\em MDP}) if $d_L^c(\C) =
385: (L + 1)(n-k) + 1$; note that Theorem~\ref{P-dcj.bound} implies that
386: $d_j^c(\C) = (j + 1)(n-k) + 1$ for all $j\in\{0,1,\ldots ,L\}$. In
387: other words, the column distances of an MDP code are maximal for as
388: long as possible.
389:
390: We close this section by introducing superregular matrices; in Section
391: 2, we will see their relevance to the construction of MDP codes.
392: \begin{defi}\label{SRMDef}
393: Let $A$ be the $(\gamma +1) \times (\gamma +1)$ lower triangular Toeplitz
394: matrix
395: $$
396: \begin{bmatrix}
397: a_0 & 0 & \cdots & 0 \\
398: a_1 & a_0 & \ddots & \vdots \\
399: \vdots & \ddots & \ddots & 0 \\
400: a_{\gamma} & \cdots & a_1 & a_0
401: \end{bmatrix}.
402: $$
403: Let $s\in \{1,2,\ldots ,\gamma +1\}$. Suppose that $I:=\{ i_1,\ldots ,i_s \}$ is a set of row indices of $A$,
404: $J:=\{ j_1,\ldots ,j_s \}$ is a set of column indices of $A$, and that that the elements of each set are
405: ordered from least to greatest. We denote by $A^{i_1,\ldots ,i_s}_{j_1,\ldots ,j_s}$
406: the submatrix of $A$ formed by intersecting the columns indexed by the members of $J$ and the rows indexed by
407: the members of $I$. A submatrix of $A$ is said to be {\em proper} if, for each $\nu\in \{ 1,2,\dots ,s \}$, the
408: inequality $j_\nu\leq
409: i_\nu$ holds. The matrix $A$ is said to be {\em superregular} if every proper submatrix of $A$ has a nonzero determinant.
410: \end{defi}
411: \begin{rem}\label{SRMRem}
412:
413: Observe that the proper submatrices of $A$ are the
414: only ones that can possibly have a nonzero determinant: If
415: $j_{\nu}>i_{\nu}$ for some $\nu$, then, in the submatrix
416: $A^{i_1,\ldots,i_s}_{j_1,\ldots,j_s}$, the upper right block
417: consisting of the first $\nu$ rows and the last $s-\nu+1$ columns contains only zero entries. Hence, the matrix formed from the first $\nu$ rows
418: of $A^{i_1,\ldots,i_s}_{j_1,\ldots,j_s}$ can have rank at most
419: $\nu-1$. For example, if $\gamma \geq 4$, we can consider the
420: submatrix
421: \begin{equation*}
422: A^{1,2,5}_{1,3,4}=\begin{bmatrix} a_{0}&0&0\\ a_{1}&0&0\\
423: a_{4}&a_{2}&a_{1}\end{bmatrix}.
424: \end{equation*}
425: This submatrix clearly has a zero determinant regardless of what
426: $a_0,a_1,a_2$, and $a_4$ are.
427: \end{rem}
428:
429: \section{A Construction of MDP Codes from Superregular Matrices}
430: In this section, we take a closer look at the transposes $(H^c_j)^T \in \F ^{(j+1)(n-k)\times (j+1)n}$ of the
431: matrices that were introduced in
432: (\ref{e-Gcj}):
433: $$
434: (H^c_j)^T = \begin{bmatrix}
435: H_0^T& 0&\cdots&0 \\
436: H_1^T& H_0^T& \ddots & \vdots \\
437: \vdots& \vdots & \ddots &0\\
438: H_j^T&H_{j-1}^T& \cdots &H_0^T
439: \end{bmatrix}.
440: $$
441: We then have the following definition:
442: \begin{defi}
443: $(H^c_j)^T$ is said to have the
444: {\em maximum span property} if none of the first $n$ columns of $(H^c_j)^T$ is
445: contained in the span of any other $(j+1)(n-k)-1$ columns
446: of $(H^c_j)^T$.
447: \end{defi}
448: We note here that, of course, each of the first $n$ columns of $(H^c_j)^T$ is in the span of some set of
449: $(j+1)(n-k)$ columns of $(H^c_j)^T$. We also make the observation that, if $\C$ is an $(n,k,\delta)$-code and
450: $(H^c_j)^T$ the transpose of its $j$th truncated sliding parity check matrix, then $d^c_j(\C)=(n-k)(j+1)+1$ if and only
451: if $(H^c_j)^T$ has the maximum span property. In particular, $\C$ is an MDP code if and only if $(H^c_L)^T$ has
452: the maximum span property.
453:
454: Since $H(s)$ is basic, we may assume without loss of generality (for the purpose of what follows) that the
455: $(n-k)\times (n-k)$ submatrix of $H_0$ consisting of the first $n-k$ columns has full rank. In this case, left
456: multiplication by an invertible matrix followed by a column permutation gives the matrix
457: $$
458: \widehat {(H^c_j)^T}:=\left[\!\begin{array}{cccc|cccc}
459: 1& 0&\cdots& 0 &\widehat H_0 & 0 & \cdots & 0 \\
460: 0& 1&\ddots & \vdots & \widehat H_1 &\widehat H_0 & \ddots & \vdots \\
461: \vdots &\ddots &\ddots& 0 & \vdots & \ddots &\ddots & 0\\
462: 0&\cdots & 0 &1 &\widehat H_j& \widehat H_{j-1} &\cdots&\widehat H_0\end{array}\!\right] := \left[
463: I_{(j+1)(n-k)} \, | \, \widehat H \right].
464: $$
465: Recalling Definition 3.1, we will also say that any matrix having the same form as $\widehat {(H^c_j)^T}$ has the maximum span property if none of the first $k$
466: columns of $\widehat H$ is contained in the span of any other $(n-k)(j+1)-1$ columns of $\widehat {(H^c_j)^T}$.
467: Note that if $(H^c_j)^T$ has the maximum span property, then so does $\widehat {(H^c_j)^T}$. The next theorem is a
468: simplified version of~\cite[Theorem 3.5]{gl03r}; it relates the superregularity property to the maximum span
469: property:
470: \begin{theo}\label{T-superreg}
471: Let $T$ be a $(j+1)\times (j+1)$ lower triangular Toeplitz
472: matrix:
473: \begin{equation}\label{e-HToeplitz}
474: T:=
475: \begin{bmatrix} t_0 & 0 & \cdots & 0 \\
476: t_1 & t_0 & \ddots & \vdots \\
477: \vdots & \ddots &\ddots & 0\\
478: t_j & t_{j-1} & \cdots & t_0\end{bmatrix}
479: \end{equation}
480: Then, $T$ is superregular if and only if the matrix $[I_{j+1} \, | \, T]$ has the maximum span property.
481: \end{theo}
482: Given $k$, $n$, and $j$, we will now see how to use an appropriately sized superregular matrix to construct a
483: matrix which has the form of $\widehat {(H^c_j)^T}$ and the maximum span property (for more details,
484: see~\cite[Appendix C]{gl03r}):
485:
486: \begin{theo} \label{result}
487: Let $T$ be an $l\times l$ superregular matrix, where
488: $l\geq (j+1)(n-1)$.
489: Let $T'$ the submatrix obtained from $T$ by intersecting the rows indexed by $\{k,
490: k+1,\ldots, n-1, n-1+k, n-1+k+1, \ldots, 2(n-1),
491: \ldots ,j(n-1)+k,j(n-1)+k+1,\ldots,j(n-1)+n-1\}$ and columns indexed by $\{1,2,\ldots, k, n-1+1,n-1+2,\ldots, n-1+k,
492: \ldots,j(n-1)+1,j(n-1)+2,\ldots,j(n-1)+k\}$. Then, $T'\in \F ^{(j+1)(n-k)\times (j+1)k}$ is a lower
493: block triangular Toeplitz matrix such that $[I_{(j+1)(n-k)} \, | \, T']$ has the maximum span property.
494: \end{theo}
495: If we let $j=L$, we may use the resulting matrix to construct a parity check matrix of an MDP convolutional code.
496:
497: \begin{exa}
498: In this example, we consider the following matrix over $\F _{64}$:
499: $$
500: \begin{bmatrix}1&0&0&0&0&0&0&0\\ \omega&1&0&0&0&0&0&0\\
501: \omega^9&\omega&1&0&0&0&0&0\\\omega^{33}&\omega^9&\omega&1&0&0&0&0\\
502: \omega^{33}&\omega^{33}&\omega^9&\omega&1&0&0&0\\
503: \omega^9&\omega^{33}&\omega^{33}&\omega^9&\omega&1&0&0\\
504: \omega&\omega^9&\omega^{33}&\omega^{33}&\omega^9&\omega&1&0\\
505: 1&\omega&\omega^9&\omega^{33}&\omega^{33}&\omega^9&\omega&1
506: \end{bmatrix}.
507: $$
508: Here, $\omega$ is a root of $x^6+x+1 \in \F _2[x]$ and is thus a primitive field element. According to~\cite{gl03r},
509: this matrix is superregular. We let $k=2$, $n=3$, and $\delta =2$. Then, $L=3$, and, since $(L+1)(n-1)=8$, we
510: may use Theorem~\ref{result} to form the matrix
511: $$
512: \left[
513: \begin{array}{cccc|cccccccc}
514:
515: 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & \omega & 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0\\
516: 0 & 1 & 0 & 0 & \omega ^{33} & \omega ^{9} & \omega & 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0\\
517: 0 & 0 & 1 & 0 & \omega ^9 & \omega ^{33} & \omega ^{33} & \omega ^9 & \omega & 1 & 0 & 0\\
518: 0 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 1 & \omega & \omega ^9 & \omega ^{33} & \omega ^{33} & \omega ^9 & \omega & 1
519: \end{array}
520: \right],
521: $$
522: which has the maximum span property. We may then use this matrix to construct a polynomial generator matrix for
523: an MDP $(3,2,3)$ code. We could, for example, think of the $1\times 2$ matrices making up the first block column
524: of the right-hand side of this matrix as a finite sequence of Markov parameters and compute a minimal partial
525: realization of this sequence (see, for example,~\cite{an86}). We would then compute the corresponding transfer
526: function. After some small algebraic manipulations and fixing an ordering for the codeword components, we would
527: arrive at a polynomial generator matrix and its corresponding
528: convolutional code (see~\cite{ro99a} for more information about the relationship between the linear systems and
529: polynomial representations of convolutional codes). In this example, one possibility for a resulting generator matrix is
530: $$
531: \begin{bmatrix}
532: s^2 + \omega ^{57}s + \omega ^{62} & 0\\
533: 0 & s^2 + \omega ^{57}s + \omega ^{62}\\
534: \omega s^2+\omega ^{44} s+\omega ^{54} & s^2 +\omega ^{17} s+\omega ^{21}
535: \end{bmatrix}.
536: $$
537: \end{exa}
538: \section{Group Actions Preserving the Superregularity \\Property}
539: In this section, we consider group actions that allow one to create new
540: superregular matrices from a given one. The main utility of these actions is
541: that they reduce the number of matrices one must check when performing a computer
542: search for matrices having the superregularity property.
543:
544: For a prime power $p^e$ and a nonnegative integer
545: $\gamma$, denote by $SR(p^e,\gamma )$ the set of superregular matrices of
546: dimension $\gamma +1$ over $\F _{p^e}$. The first group action is a corollary of the following result,
547: which is proven in~\cite{gl03r}:
548: \begin{theo}\label{Z2}
549: Suppose that $A\in SR(p^e,\gamma )$. Then, $A^{-1}\in SR(p^e,\gamma )$.
550: \end{theo}
551: \begin{cor}\label{Z2Cor}
552: There is an action $*_1$ of the additive group $(\Z ,+)$ on the set $SR(p^e,\gamma )$, given by
553: $$
554: \begin{array}{cccc}\label{Action1}
555: *_1: & \Z \times SR(p^e,\gamma ) & \longrightarrow & SR(p^e,\gamma )\\
556: & \hspace{-0.7cm}(x,A) & \longmapsto &
557: A^{(-1)^{x}}.
558: \end{array}
559: $$
560: \end{cor}
561: \begin{proof}
562: By Theorem~\ref{Z2}, $A^{-1}$ is superregular, and it is clear that $*_1$ is a
563: group action.
564: \end{proof}
565: We next have the following simple result:
566: \begin{lemma}\label{SRInverse}
567: If $A\in SR(p^e,\gamma )$ and $\gamma \geq 2$, then $A\neq A^{-1}$.
568: \end{lemma}
569: \begin{proof}
570: Suppose
571: $$
572: A:=
573: \begin{bmatrix}
574: a_0 & 0 & \cdots & 0 \\
575: a_1 & a_0 & \ddots & \vdots \\
576: \vdots & \ddots & \ddots & 0 \\
577: a_{\gamma} & \cdots & a_1 & a_0
578: \end{bmatrix}
579: $$
580: is a superregular matrix, where $\gamma \geq 2$. Suppose in addition that $A=A^{-1}$. Then, since
581: $A^2=I_{\gamma +1}$, we must have that $a_0a_1+a_1a_0=2a_0a_1=0$. By
582: hypothesis, $a_0, a_1\not =0$. Thus, the field must have
583: characteristic 2. We must also have that
584: $a_2a_0+a_1^2+a_0a_2=2a_0a_2+a_1^2=0$. Since the field has
585: characteristic 2, this equation reduces to $a_1^2=0$. This is a
586: contradiction, as $a_1\not =0$. Thus, $A\not =A^{-1}$.
587: \end{proof}
588: \begin{cor}\label{SREven}
589: If $\gamma \geq 2$, then $|SR(p^e,\gamma )|$ is even.
590: \end{cor}
591:
592: We next describe an action of the multiplicative group $\F _{p^e}^*:=\F _{p^e} \backslash \{
593: 0 \}$ of nonzero field elements of $\F _{p^e}$ on $SR(p^e,\gamma )$:
594: \begin{theo}\label{Fp*}
595: Let $\alpha\in\F _{p^e}^*$. Define
596: $$
597: \alpha \bullet A:=
598: \begin{bmatrix}
599: a_0 & 0 & \cdots & \cdots &
600: 0 \\
601: \alpha a_1 & \ddots & \ddots & &
602: \vdots \\
603: \alpha ^2 a_2 & \ddots & \ddots & \ddots &
604: \vdots \\
605: \vdots & \ddots & \ddots & \ddots &
606: 0 \\
607: \alpha ^{\gamma} a_{\gamma} & \cdots & \alpha ^2 a_2 & \alpha a_1 &
608: a_0
609: \end{bmatrix}
610: $$
611: Then, the map
612: $$
613: \begin{array}{cccc}\label{Action2}
614: *_2: & \F _{p^e}^* \times SR(p^e,\gamma ) & \longrightarrow & SR(p^e,\gamma )\\
615: & \hspace{-0.8cm}(\alpha,A) & \longmapsto &
616: \alpha \bullet A
617: \end{array}
618: $$
619: is an action of $\F _{p^e}^*$ on $SR(p^e,\gamma )$.
620: \end{theo}
621: \begin{proof}
622: It is readily verified that $*_2$ is a group action. Let
623: $$
624: D:=
625: \begin{bmatrix}
626: 1 & 0 & \cdots & 0 \\
627: 0 & \alpha & \ddots & \vdots \\
628: \vdots & \ddots & \ddots & 0 \\
629: 0 & \cdots & 0 & \alpha ^{\gamma}
630: \end{bmatrix}.
631: $$
632: One can then describe $*_2$ through conjugation by $D$: $\alpha \bullet A = DAD^{-1}$. This changes the determinants of
633: submatrices of $A$ only by factors of powers of $\alpha$, and it follows that
634: $\alpha \bullet A$ is also superregular.
635: \end{proof}
636:
637: The final group action we consider makes use of the Galois group
638: $Aut_{\F_p}\F_{p^e}$. We recall here the fact that $Aut_{\F_p}\F_{p^e} = \langle \sigma \rangle$, where $\sigma
639: \in Aut_{\F _p}\F _{p^e}$ is the $\F _p$-automorphism defined by $\sigma (x) = x^p\,\, \forall x\in \F _{p^e}$.
640: Consequently, $Aut_{\F _p}\F _{p^e}\cong
641: \Z/e\Z$.
642: \begin{theo}\label{ZkZ}
643: Let $A\in SR(p^e,\gamma )$. Let $i\in \Z /e\Z$. Define
644: $$
645: i \circ A:=
646: \begin{bmatrix}
647: a_0^{p^i} & 0 & \cdots & \cdots &
648: 0 \\
649: a_1^{p^i} & \ddots & \ddots & &
650: \vdots \\
651: a_2^{p^i} & \ddots & \ddots & \ddots &
652: \vdots \\
653: \vdots & \ddots & \ddots & \ddots &
654: 0 \\
655: a_{\gamma}^{p^i} & \cdots &
656: a_2^{p^i} & a_1^{p^i} &
657: a_0^{p^i}
658: \end{bmatrix}.
659: $$
660: Then, the map
661: $$
662: \begin{array}{cccc}\label{Action3}
663: *_3: & \Z /e\Z \times SR(p^e,\gamma ) & \longrightarrow & SR(p^e,\gamma )\\
664: & \hspace{-0.8cm}(i,A) & \longmapsto &
665: i \circ A
666: \end{array}
667: $$
668: is an action of the additive group $\Z /e\Z$ on $SR(p^e,\gamma )$.
669: \end{theo}
670: \begin{proof}
671: It is readily verified that $*_3$ is a group action. As the entries of $A$ belong to a field of characteristic $p$, the
672: determinant of a submatrix of $i \circ A$ is the determinant of the
673: corresponding submatrix of $A$ raised to the $p^i$th power. Thus, $i \circ A$
674: is also superregular.
675: \end{proof}
676:
677: \section{An Upper Bound for the Required Field Size}
678: An important question to consider in trying to better understand superregular
679: matrices is that of how large a finite field must
680: be in order that a superregular matrix of a given size can exist over that
681: field. For example, no $3\times 3$ superregular matrix exists over the field
682: $\F _2$: all entries in the lower triangular part of a superregular matrix must be nonzero, which means that
683: in this case all such entries would have to be 1; clearly, this does not result in a
684: superregular matrix, since the lower left $2\times 2$ submatrix has a zero determinant. In this section, we give an upper bound on the required
685: field size. We begin with a technical lemma:
686: \begin{lemma}\label{Bijection}
687: Let $i$ be a nonnegative integer and $\gamma$ a positive integer.
688: Let $S_{i+1}$ denote the set of integer sequences $\{s_l\}_{l=0}^{i+1}$,
689: where $s_0=0$, $s_{i+1}=\gamma$, and $s_l<s_{l+1}\, \forall \, l\in
690: \{0,1,\ldots ,i\}$.
691: Let $S_{i,\gamma }:=\{\{s_l\}_{l=0}^{i+1}\in S_{i+1} \,\, with \,\,
692: s_j+s_{i-j+1}\leq \gamma ,\, j=0,1,\ldots ,\lceil\frac{i}{2}\rceil\}$.
693: Let $T_{i+1}$ denote the set of integer sequences $\{t_l\}_{l=0}^{i+1}$,
694: where $t_0=0$, $t_{i+1}=\gamma$, and $t_l<t_{l+1}\, \forall \, l\in
695: \{0,1,\ldots ,i\}$. Let
696: $T_{i,\gamma }:=\{\{t_l\}_{l=0}^{i+1}\in T_{i+1} \,\, with \,\, \sum_{l=0}^{m}
697: (-1)^l (t_{l+1}-t_l)\geq 0, \, m=0,1,\ldots ,i\}$.
698: Then,
699: $S_{i,\gamma }$ and $T_{i,\gamma }$ are finite sets, and $|S_{i,\gamma
700: }|$=$|T_{i,\gamma }|$.
701: \end{lemma}
702: \begin{proof}
703: It is clear that $S_{i,\gamma }$ and $T_{i,\gamma }$ are finite
704: sets. We now proceed to prove the second part of the claim. We will do this by first constructing an
705: injective map from $S_{i,\gamma }$ to $T_{i,\gamma }$ and then an injective map from $T_{i,\gamma }$ to
706: $S_{i,\gamma }$.
707: Throughout the proof, $t_{-1}$ and $s_{-1}$ are defined to be 0.
708: Suppose first that $i$ is even. Let $\{s_l\}_{l=0}^{i+1} \in
709: S_{i,\gamma }$. For $j\in \{0,1,\ldots ,\frac{i}{2} \}$, we make
710: the recursive definitions
711: \begin{align*}
712: t_{2j+1}&:=t_{2j}+s_{i-j+1}-s_{i-j},\\
713: t_{2j}&:=t_{2j-1}+s_{j}-s_{j-1}.
714: \end{align*}
715: Note that $t_0=s_0=0$.
716: Then, for $m\in \{0,1,\ldots
717: ,i\}$, we have
718: \begin{align*}
719: \sum_{l=0}^{m}
720: (-1)^l (t_{l+1}-t_l) &=t_1-(t_2-t_1)+(t_3-t_2)-\cdots
721: +(-1)^{m}(t_{m+1}-t_m)\\
722: &=2t_1-2t_2+2t_3-\cdots +(-1)^{m}t_{m+1}\\
723: &=2t_1-2t_2+2t_3-\cdots
724: -t_{2j}\\
725: &\hspace{3cm} \mbox{or}\\
726: &=2t_1-2t_2+2t_3-\cdots +t_{2j+1},
727: \end{align*}
728: where $j\in \{0,1,\ldots
729: ,\frac{i}{2} \}$ is $(m-1)/2$ or $m/2$ as $m$ is odd or even, respectively. Suppose
730: first that $m$ is odd. The sum then becomes
731: \begin{align*}
732: 2t_1-2t_2+2t_3-\cdots
733: -t_{2j}&=2t_1-2(t_1+s_1)+2t_3-\cdots
734: -(t_{2j-1}+s_j-s_{j-1})\\
735: &=t_{2j-1}-(s_j-s_{j-1})-2s_{j-1}\\
736: &=t_{2j-1}-s_j-s_{j-1}.
737: \end{align*}
738: Using the definition of $t_{2j+1}$ with $j$ replaced by $j-1$, we may write
739: $$
740: t_{2j-1}-s_j-s_{j-1}=t_{2j-2}+s_{i-j+2}-s_{i-j+1}
741: -s_j-s_{j-1}.
742: $$
743: Using again the definitions above, we see that, for
744: any integer $h\in \{0,\ldots ,j-1 \}$,
745: $$
746: t_{2j-2}+s_{i-j+2}-s_{i-j+1}-s_j-s_{j-1}=
747: t_{2(j-h)-2}+s_{i-(j-(h+1))+1}-s_{i-j+1}-s_j-s_{j-(h+1)}:
748: $$
749: this equation holds trivially if $h=0$, and, if $h\in \{ 0,\ldots ,j-2 \}$, we have
750: \begin{align*}
751: & t_{2(j-h)-2}+s_{i-(j-(h+1))+1}-s_{i-j+1}-s_j-s_{j-(h+1)}=\\
752: &
753: t_{2(j-h-1)-1}+s_{j-h-1}+s_{(j-h-1)-1}+s_{i-(j-(h+1))+1}-s_{i-j+1}-s_j-s_{j-(h+1)}
754: =\\&
755: t_{2(j-h-2)}+s_{i-(j-h-2)+1}-s_{i-(j-h-2)}+s_{j-h-1}-s_{(j-h-1)-1}+s_{i-(j-(h+1))+1}
756: \\& -s_{i-j+1}-s_j-s_{j-(h+1)}=\\& t_{2(j-(h+1))-2}+s_{i-(j-((h+1)+1))+1}
757: -s_{i-j+1}-s_j-s_{j-((h+1)+1)}.
758: \end{align*}
759: In particular, letting $h=j-2$ and recalling that $s_{i+1}=\gamma$ and $s_0=0$,
760: we see that
761: $$
762: t_{2j-2}+s_{i-j+2}-s_{i-j+1}-s_j-s_{j-1}=\gamma -s_{i-j+1}-s_j.
763: $$
764: Because $\{s_l\}_{l=0}^{i+1} \in S_{i,\gamma }$, $\gamma -s_{i-j+1}-s_j\geq 0$.
765:
766: Suppose now that $m$ is even. We are then interested in the sum
767: $$
768: 2t_1-2t_2+2t_3-\cdots +t_{2j+1}.
769: $$
770: From the analysis in the case of $m$ odd, we see that we may write
771: \begin{align*}
772: 2t_1-2t_2+2t_3-\cdots
773: +t_{2j+1}&=t_{2j-1}-s_j-s_{j-1}-t_{2j}+t_{2j+1}\\
774: &=t_{2j-1}-s_j-s_{j-1}-t_{2j}+t_{2j}+s_{i-j+1}-s_{i-j}\\
775: &=t_{2j-1}-s_j-s_{j-1}+s_{i-j+1}-s_{i-j}.
776: \end{align*}
777: Using the same method as before, we see that, for any integer
778: $h\in \{0,\ldots ,j-1 \}$,
779: $$
780: t_{2j-1}-s_j-s_{j-1}+s_{i-j+1}-s_{i-j}=t_{2(j-h)-1}
781: +s_{i-(j-h)+1}-s_{i-j}-s_j-s_{j-(h+1)}.
782: $$
783: In particular, letting $h=j-1$, the right side of this equality reduces to
784: $$
785: t_1+s_i-s_{i-j}-s_j.
786: $$
787: Using the definition of $t_1$, this becomes
788: \begin{align*}
789: s_{i+1}-s_i+s_i-s_{i-j}-s_j&=s_{i+1}-s_{i-j}-s_j\\
790: &=\gamma -s_{i-j}-s_j.
791: \end{align*}
792: Since $s_{i-j}<s_{i-j+1}$ and $\gamma -s_{i-j+1}-s_j\geq 0$, it follows that $\gamma -s_{i-j}-s_j\geq 0$.
793:
794: It
795: remains to be shown that $t_{i+1}=\gamma$. We have
796: \begin{align*}
797: t_{2j+1}&=t_{2j}+s_{i-j+1}-s_{i-j}\\
798: &=t_{2j-1}+s_j-s_{j-1}+s_{i-j+1}-s_{i-j}\\
799: &=t_{2j-2}+s_{i-j+2}+s_j-s_{j-1}-s_{i-j}.
800: \end{align*}
801: In the same way as above, one sees that, for any integer $h\in
802: \{1,\ldots ,j \}$,
803: $$
804: t_{2j-2}+s_{i-j+2}+s_j-s_{j-1}-s_{i-j}=t_{2(j-h)}+s_{i-(j-h)+1}
805: -s_{j-h}+s_j-s_{i-j}.
806: $$
807: In particular, letting $j=\frac{i}{2}$ and $h=j$, the right side of the
808: preceding equality simplifies to $s_{i+1}$. By hypothesis, $s_{i+1}=\gamma$.
809: Thus, $t_{i+1}=\gamma$.
810: This completes the case of $i$ even.
811:
812: Suppose now that $i$ is odd. For $j\in \{0,1,\ldots
813: ,\frac{i-1}{2} \}$, define $t_{2j+1}$ as above. For $j\in
814: \{0,1,\ldots ,\frac{i+1}{2} \}$, define $t_{2j}$ as above. The
815: proof then proceeds as in the case of $i$ even.
816:
817: We thus obtain a well-defined map $f$ from $S_{i,\gamma }$ to
818: $T_{i,\gamma }$: if $\{s_l\}_{l=0}^{i+1} \in S_{i,\gamma }$, let
819: $f(\{s_l\}_{l=0}^{i+1})=\{t_l\}_{l=0}^{i+1}$, where each $t_l$ is
820: defined via the equations at the beginning of the proof. It
821: follows immediately from the definition of the $t_l$ that $f$ is
822: injective. Thus, to show $|S_{i,\gamma }|$=$|T_{i,\gamma }|$, it
823: will suffice to construct a similar injective map from
824: $T_{i,\gamma }$ to $S_{i,\gamma }$.
825:
826: Suppose first that
827: $i$ is even. Let $\{t_l\}_{l=0}^{i+1} \in T_{i,\gamma }$. For $j\in \{0,1,\ldots
828: ,\frac{i}{2} \}$, we make the recursive definitions
829: \begin{align*}
830: s_j&:=s_{j-1}
831: +t_{2j}-t_{2j-1}\\
832: s_{i-j}&:=s_{i-j+1}-t_{2j+1}+t_{2j}.
833: \end{align*}
834: Note that $s_0=t_0=0$.
835: Then, using these definitions, we have that
836: \begin{align*}
837: s_j+s_{i-j+1}&=s_{j-1}+t_{2j}-t_{2j-1}+s_{i-j+2}+t_{2j-2}-t_{2j-1}
838: \\
839: &= s_{j-2}+t_{2j-2}-t_{2j-3}+t_{2j}-t_{2j-1}+s_{i-j+3}+t_{2j-4}
840: -t_{2j-3}+t_{2j-2}-t_{2j-1}\\
841: &=\\
842: &\hspace{0.25cm}\vdots\\
843: &=\gamma -2t_1+2t_2-\cdots +t_{2j}.
844: \end{align*}
845: Because $\{t_l\}_{l=0}^{i+1} \in T_{i,\gamma }$,
846: $2t_1-2t_2+\ldots -t_{2j}\geq 0$. Thus, $s_j+s_{i-j+1}\leq
847: \gamma$. It remains to be shown that $s_{i+1}=\gamma$. From the
848: definition of $s_0$, it is clear that $s_0=0$. We have that
849: \begin{align*}
850: s_{i+1} & = s_i+t_1\\
851: & = s_{i-1}+t_3-t_2+t_1\\
852: & = s_{i-2}+t_5-t_4+t_3-t_2+t_1\\
853: & \,\,\,\, \vdots \\
854: & = s_{\frac{i}{2}}+t_{i+1}-t_i+t_{i-1}-t_{i-2}+
855: \cdots +t_3-t_2+t_1.
856: \end{align*}
857: We also have that
858: \begin{align*}
859: s_{\frac{i}{2}} & = s_{\frac{i-2}{2}}+t_i-t_{i-1}\\
860: & = s_{\frac{i-4}{2}}+t_{i-2}-t_{i-3}+t_i-t_{i-1}\\
861: & \,\,\,\, \vdots \\
862: & = -t_1+t_2-t_3+\cdots +t_{i-2}-t_{i-3}+t_i-t_{i-1}.
863: \end{align*}
864: Thus, $s_{i+1}=t_{i+1}$. Since $t_{i+1}=\gamma$ by hypothesis, it follows that
865: $s_{i+1}=\gamma$.
866:
867: Suppose now that $i$ is odd. For $j\in \{0,1,\ldots ,\frac{i+1}{2} \}$,
868: define $s_j$ as above. For $j\in \{0,1,\ldots ,\frac{i-1}{2}
869: \}$, define $s_{i-j+1}$ as above. The proof then proceeds as
870: in the case of $i$ even.
871:
872: We thus obtain a well-defined map $g$ from $T_{i,\gamma }$ to $S_{i,\gamma }$: if $\{t_l\}
873: _{l=0}^{i+1} \in T_{i,\gamma }$, let $g(\{t_l\}
874: _{l=0}^{i+1})=\{s_l\}_{l=0}^{i+1}$, where each $s_l$ is defined
875: via the equations above. It follows immediately from the definition of the $s_l$ that $g$ is injective. Thus,
876: $|S_{i,\gamma }|=|T_{i,\gamma }|$.
877: \end{proof}
878:
879: We need one more technical lemma before computing the upper bound:
880: \begin{lemma}\label{Count}
881: Let $\gamma$ be a positive integer. Then, $\prod_{1\leq i\leq j\leq \gamma
882: }
883: \frac{2+i+j}{i+j}=\frac{1}{\gamma +2} {2(\gamma +1)\choose \gamma +1}$.
884: \end{lemma}
885: \begin{proof}
886: The proof is by induction. The claim is clearly true if $\gamma =1$.
887: Suppose that $\prod_{1\leq i\leq j\leq \gamma }
888: \frac{2+i+j}{i+j}=\frac{1}{\gamma +2} {2(\gamma +1)\choose \gamma +1}$ for some
889: $\gamma\geq 1$. Then,
890: \begin{align*}
891: &\prod_{1\leq i\leq j\leq \gamma +1}
892: \frac{2+i+j}{i+j}= \prod_{1\leq i\leq j\leq \gamma }
893: \frac{2+i+j}{i+j} \prod_{1\leq i\leq \gamma +1}
894: \frac{i+\gamma +3}{i+\gamma +1}=\\ &\frac{1}{\gamma +2} \frac{(2\gamma
895: +2)(2\gamma +1)\cdots
896: 1}{(\gamma +1)(\gamma )\cdots 1(\gamma +1)(\gamma )\cdots 1}
897: \frac{(\gamma +4)(\gamma +5)\cdots
898: (2\gamma +4)}{(\gamma +2)(\gamma +3)\cdots (2\gamma +2)}=\\
899: &\frac{(2\gamma +2)(2\gamma +1)\cdots
900: (\gamma +3)}{(\gamma +1)(\gamma )\cdots 1} \frac{(\gamma +4)(\gamma +5)\cdots
901: (2\gamma +4)}{(\gamma +2)(\gamma +3)\cdots (2\gamma +2)}=\\
902: &\frac{1}{\gamma +3}
903: \frac{(2\gamma +4)(2\gamma +3)\cdots (\gamma +3)}{(\gamma +2)(\gamma +1)\cdots 1}=
904: \frac{1}{\gamma +3} \frac{(2\gamma +4)(2\gamma +3)\cdots 1}{(\gamma
905: +2)(\gamma +1)\cdots
906: 1(\gamma +2)(\gamma +1)\cdots 1}=\\ &\frac{1}{\gamma +3} {2\gamma
907: +4\choose \gamma +2}=
908: \frac{1}{(\gamma +1)+2} {2((\gamma +1)+1)\choose (\gamma +1)+1}.
909: \end{align*}
910: This proves the claim.
911: \end{proof}
912:
913: We are now ready to prove the main result of this section:
914: \begin{theo}\label{Bound}
915: Let $\gamma\in \N$. Let $C_{\gamma}$ denote the $\gamma$th Catalan number:
916: $C_{\gamma}:=\frac{1}{\gamma +1}
917: {2\gamma\choose \gamma }$. Let $\F$ be a finite field such
918: that $|\F|>\frac{1}{2}\big (C_{\gamma -1} +{\gamma -1\choose \lfloor
919: \frac{\gamma -1}{2} \rfloor} \big )$. Then, there exists a $\gamma\times
920: \gamma$
921: superregular matrix over $\F$.
922: \end{theo}
923: \begin{proof}
924: We first upper bound the number of submatrices of a
925: $\gamma\times \gamma$ lower triangular Toeplitz matrix that possess a certain property and show that this
926: upper bound is given by the expression in the
927: statement of the theorem. We then observe that the number thus
928: obtained is actually an upper bound on the minimal size a finite field $\F$ must
929: have in order that a $\gamma\times \gamma$ superregular matrix over $\F$ can exist.
930:
931: For convenience, we drop the matrix entries with index 0. Thus, a
932: $\gamma\times \gamma$ lower triangular Toeplitz matrix $X$ with indeterminate
933: entries is now defined by a first column of the form
934: $$
935: [x_1\,\,\,\,\,\, x_2\,\,\,\,\,\, \cdots \,\,\,\,\,\, x_{\gamma}]^T.
936: $$
937: The determinants
938: of the proper square submatrices of such a matrix are given by nonzero polynomials in
939: these indeterminates. Notice that $x_{\gamma}$ can appear to at most the first
940: power
941: in any of these polynomials; in other words, each of these polynomials has
942: the property that either it is linear in $x_{\gamma}$, or $x_{\gamma}$ does not appear in
943: any of its terms. We are interested in those proper
944: square submatrices whose determinants are linear in $x_{\gamma}$, and we denote the
945: set of such submatrices by $L_{\gamma}$.
946:
947: First, we observe that $L_{\gamma}$ consists of the single entry
948: $x_{\gamma}=X_{1}^{\gamma}$ and
949: the submatrices $X_{1,j_1,\ldots
950: ,j_{s-1}}^{i_1,i_2,\ldots ,i_{s-1},\gamma }$, where $s\in \{ 2,\ldots ,\gamma -1
951: \}$, where
952: $j_{\nu}\leq
953: i_{\nu}$ for all $\nu\in \{1,2,\ldots ,s-1\}$. That $X_{1}^{\gamma}$ is the only $1\times
954: 1$ submatrix in $L_{\gamma}$ is obvious; to see the second part, evaluate
955: det$X_{1,j_1,\ldots ,j_{s-1}}^{i_1,i_2,\ldots ,i_{s-1},\gamma }$ by doing a
956: cofactor expansion along the first column of $X_{1,j_1,\ldots
957: ,j_{s-1}}^{i_1,i_2,\ldots ,i_{s-1},\gamma }$. The indeterminate
958: $x_{\gamma}$ appears if and only if det$X_{j_1,j_2,\ldots
959: ,j_{s-1}}^{i_1,i_2,\ldots ,i_{s-1}}\not =0$. This is the
960: case if and only if $X_{j_1,j_2,\ldots
961: ,j_{s-1}}^{i_1,i_2,\ldots ,i_{s-1}}$ is a proper submatrix, and
962: $X_{j_1,j_2,\ldots
963: ,j_{s-1}}^{i_1,i_2,\ldots ,i_{s-1}}$ is a proper submatrix if and
964: only if $j_{\nu}\leq
965: i_{\nu}$ for all $\nu\in \{1,2,\ldots ,s-1\}$.
966:
967: Next, we observe that $L_{\gamma }$ is closed with respect to
968: transpose about the antidiagonal of $X$. In order to see this,
969: note that the transpose $\bar X_{1,j_1,\ldots
970: ,j_{s-1}}^{i_1,i_2,\ldots ,i_{s-1},\gamma }$ of any submatrix
971: $X_{1,j_1,\ldots ,j_{s-1}}^{i_1,i_2,\ldots ,i_{s-1},\gamma }$
972: about the antidiagonal is given by $\bar X_{1,j_1,\ldots
973: ,j_{s-1}}^{i_1,i_2,\ldots ,i_{s-1},\gamma }=X_{1,\gamma
974: -i_{s-1}+1,\ldots ,\gamma - i_1+1}^{\gamma -j_{s-1}+1,\gamma
975: -j_{s-2}+1,\ldots ,\gamma }$. Clearly, $\gamma -i_{\nu}+1\leq
976: \gamma -j_{\nu}+1 \iff j_{\nu}\leq i_{\nu}$. Of course,
977: $X_{1,j_1,\ldots ,j_{s-1}}^{i_1,i_2,\ldots ,i_{s-1},\gamma }\in
978: L_{\gamma}$ is symmetric with respect to the antidiagonal of $X$
979: if and only if $X_{1,j_1,\ldots ,j_{s-1}}^{i_1,i_2,\ldots
980: ,i_{s-1},\gamma }=\bar X_{1,j_1,\ldots ,j_{s-1}}^{i_1,i_2\ldots
981: ,i_{s-1},\gamma }$. Let $L'_{\gamma}\subset L_{\gamma}$ denote
982: those elements of $L_{\gamma}$ that are symmetric with respect to
983: the antidiagonal.
984:
985: Finally, because $X$ is symmetric with respect to the antidiagonal, taking
986: the transpose $\bar X_{1,j_1,\ldots
987: ,j_{s-1}}^{i_1,i_2,\ldots ,i_{s-1},\gamma }$ of a square submatrix $X_{1,j_1,\ldots
988: ,j_{s+1}}^{i_1,i_2,\ldots ,i_{s-1},\gamma }$ about the antidiagonal of $X$ amounts to
989: taking the transpose of $X_{1,j_1,\ldots
990: ,j_{s-1}}^{i_1,i_2\ldots ,i_{s-1},\gamma }$ about its own antidiagonal. Since the
991: determinant of a matrix is the same as the determinant of its transpose about
992: its antidiagonal, we have that
993: det$X_{1,j_1,\ldots
994: ,j_{s-1}}^{i_1,i_2,\ldots ,i_{s-1},\gamma }$= det$\bar X_{1,j_1,\ldots
995: ,j_{s-1}}^{i_1,i_2,\ldots ,i_{s-1},\gamma }$.
996:
997: By definition, the determinants of the elements of $L_{\gamma}$ are polynomials
998: linear in $x_{\gamma}$. We wish to determine how large a finite field must
999: be in order to guarantee that nonzero field
1000: elements may be substituted for $x_1,x_2,\ldots ,x_{\gamma}$ in such a
1001: way that none of these determinants is zero. We do this by
1002: computing an upper bound $N_{\gamma}$ on the number of distinct polynomials giving the
1003: determinants of the elements of $L_{\gamma}$. As long as the order of
1004: the field is bigger than $N_{\gamma}$, it is clearly possible to make all
1005: of these determinants nonzero. From the above
1006: observations, we see that, once we have computed $|L_{\gamma}|$ and
1007: $|L'_{\gamma}|$, we
1008: may take as an upper bound
1009: $N_{\gamma}:=\frac{1}{2}(|L_{\gamma}|+|L'_{\gamma}|)$.
1010:
1011: As seen above, the $s\times s$ submatrices in $L_{\gamma}$, $s\in
1012: \{ 2,\ldots ,\gamma -1 \}$, are described by sets
1013: $\{i_1,i_2,\ldots ,i_{s-1},j_1,j_2,\ldots ,j_{s-1}\}$ of indices,
1014: where $j_{\nu}\leq i_{\nu}$ for all $\nu\in \{1,2,\ldots ,s-1\}$,
1015: $1<i_1<\ldots <i_{s-1}<\gamma$, and $1<j_1<\ldots
1016: <j_{s-1}<\gamma$ (and the $1\times 1$ submatrix $x_{\gamma}$ is
1017: associated with an empty set of indices). Each nonempty index
1018: set defines a generalized Young tableau with columns having
1019: height 2 and integer entries in $\{ 2,\ldots ,\gamma -1 \}$;
1020: conversely the entries of such a tableau constitute a set of
1021: indices corresponding to a submatrix in $L_{\gamma}$. The empty
1022: set of indices corresponds to a tableau with all columns having
1023: height 0. In~\cite{CatVien}, it is shown that the number of such
1024: tableaux is given by $\prod_{1\leq i\leq j\leq \gamma -2}
1025: \frac{2+i+j}{i+j}$. By Lemma~\ref{Count}, this product is
1026: $C_{\gamma -1}$. Consequently, $|L_{\gamma}|=C_{\gamma -1}$.
1027:
1028: We compute $|L'_{\gamma}|$ as follows. If the submatrix
1029: $X_{1,j_1,\ldots ,j_{\gamma}}^{i_1,i_2\ldots ,i_{s-1},\gamma }\in
1030: L'_{\gamma}$, where $s\in \{ 2,\ldots ,\gamma -1 \}$, then, since
1031: $X_{1,j_1,\ldots ,j_{s-1}}^{i_1,i_2,\ldots ,i_{s-1},\gamma }=\bar
1032: X_{1,j_1,\ldots ,j_{s-1}}^{i_1,i_2\ldots ,i_{s-1},\gamma }$, it
1033: must be that $\gamma -i_{\nu}=j_{s-\nu }-1$ for all $\nu\in
1034: \{1,2,\ldots ,s-1\}$. Thus, this submatrix is completely
1035: determined by the $s-1$ integers $w_1=j_1-1, w_2=j_2-1,\ldots
1036: ,w_{s-1}=j_{s-1}-1$. Since $X_{1,j_1,\ldots
1037: ,j_{s-1}}^{i_1,i_2,\ldots ,i_{s-1},\gamma }\in L_{\gamma}$, we
1038: have $j_l=w_l+1\leq \gamma -w_{s-l}=i_l$, $l\in \{ 1,\ldots
1039: ,\lceil\frac{s-1}{2}\rceil \}$. These inequalities can be
1040: rewritten as $w_l+w_{s-1-l}\leq \gamma -1$, $l\in \{ 1,\ldots
1041: ,\lceil\frac{s-1}{2}\rceil \}$. In other words, $\{ 0,w_1,\ldots
1042: ,w_{s-1},\gamma -1 \}$ is a sequence that belongs to
1043: $S_{s-1,\gamma -1}$. Thus, to each $s\times s$ submatrix in
1044: $L'_{\gamma}$, where $s\in \{ 2,\ldots ,\gamma -1 \}$, we have
1045: associated a unique sequence in $S_{s-1,\gamma -1}$. Similarly,
1046: to each sequence in $S_{s-1,\gamma -1}$, we can associate a
1047: unique $s\times s$ submatrix in $L'_{\gamma}$. If $s=1$, there
1048: is only the submatrix $X_{\gamma}^1$ to consider, and we have
1049: already associated this submatrix with the empty sequence, which
1050: in turn corresponds with the sequence $\{ 0,\gamma -1 \}$, the
1051: sole member of $S_{0,\gamma -1}$. Thus,
1052: $|L'_{\gamma}|=\sum_{y=0}^{\gamma -2} |S_{y,\gamma -1}|$. From
1053: Lemma~\ref{Bijection}, we know that $\sum_{y=0}^{\gamma -2}
1054: |S_{y,\gamma -1}|=\sum_{y=0}^{\gamma -2} |T_{y,\gamma -1}|$. It
1055: is sufficient, then, to compute $\sum_{y=0}^{\gamma -2}
1056: |T_{y,\gamma -1}|$.
1057:
1058: Suppose $\{t_l\}_{l=0}^{s} \in T_{s-1,\gamma -1}$. To this
1059: sequence, we can associate a nonnegative
1060: planar walk of length $\gamma -1$ with $s+1$ vertices. The walk begins at the
1061: origin, and steps are
1062: given by the
1063: vectors $(1,1)$ and $(1,-1)$. The vertices are the origin, the
1064: endpoint of the walk, and the points where the
1065: direction of the walk changes from up to down or from down to up. We make
1066: the association in the following way: let $t_i$ be the $x$-coordinate
1067: of the $i$th vertex. It is clear that this walk is nonnegative, as the
1068: condition defining membership in $T_{s-1,\gamma -1}$ guarantees nonnegativity of
1069: the associated walk. Conversely, the $x$-coordinates of
1070: the $s+1$ vertices in a nonnegative planar walk of length $\gamma -1$ form a
1071: sequence in $T_{s-1,\gamma -1}$. Therefore, this association
1072: gives a bijective correspondence between sequences in
1073: $\cup_{y=0}^{\gamma -2} T_{y,\gamma -1}$ and nonnegative planar walks of
1074: length $\gamma -1$. It is a fact (see, for example,~\cite{Feller})
1075: that the number of nonnegative planar walks of length $\gamma -1$ is
1076: given by ${\gamma -1\choose \lfloor \frac{\gamma -1}{2} \rfloor }$. This
1077: means that $\sum_{y=0}^{\gamma -2}
1078: |T_{y,\gamma -1}|={\gamma -1\choose \lfloor \frac{\gamma -1}{2} \rfloor }$.
1079: Consequently, $|L'_{\gamma}|={\gamma -1\choose \lfloor \frac{\gamma -1}{2} \rfloor
1080: }$.
1081:
1082: It remains to show that, in fact, a field of order bigger than
1083: $N_{\gamma}$ elements is large enough so that
1084: a superregular $\gamma\times \gamma$ matrix can exist over it. This
1085: may
1086: be easily
1087: seen in the following way: the determinant of each submatrix in
1088: $S_l$, $l\in \{ 1,\ldots ,\gamma \}$, is linear in $x_l$. $N_l$ increases with
1089: $l$. Thus, if we work over a field of
1090: order bigger than $N_{\gamma}$ elements, it is
1091: possible to successively substitute nonzero field elements for
1092: $x_1,x_2,\ldots
1093: ,x_{\gamma}$ in such a way that the
1094: determinant of each
1095: submatrix in $S_l$, $l\in \{ 1,\ldots ,\gamma \}$, is nonzero. This completes
1096: the proof.
1097: \end{proof}
1098:
1099: Using computer searches, we were able to determine the exact minimum
1100: field size for small values of $\gamma$. These may be seen in Table
1101: 1. We observe that the upper bound $N_{\gamma}+1$ appears to grow
1102: much more quickly than necessary:
1103: \begin{table}[h]
1104: \begin{center}
1105: \begin{tabular}{|l|c|r|}
1106: \hline
1107: $\gamma$ & Minimum Field Size Required & Upper Bound ($N_{\gamma}$ +1) \\
1108: \hline
1109: 3 & 3 & 3 \\
1110: 4 & 5 & 5 \\
1111: 5 & 7 & 11 \\
1112: 6 & 11 & 27 \\
1113: 7 & 17 & 77 \\
1114: 8 & 31 & 233 \\
1115: 9 & 59 & 751 \\
1116: 10 & $\leq 127$ & 2495 \\
1117: \hline
1118: \end{tabular}
1119: \caption{Comparison of Actual Required Field Size and $N_{\gamma}+1$}
1120: \end{center}
1121: \end{table}
1122:
1123: \noindent It is still an open problem as to how this bound may be refined.
1124: Computer searches lead us to make the following conjecture; if true, it would offer a
1125: significant improvement to the bound given here:
1126: \begin{conjecture}\label{ConjBound}
1127: For $\gamma \geq 5$, there exists a $\gamma\times \gamma$ superregular matrix over the field
1128: $\F_{2^{\gamma-2}}$.
1129: \end{conjecture}
1130:
1131: \section{For Future Research: Finding a Construction}
1132: At this point, little is understood about how to construct
1133: superregular matrices. The problem of finding constructions appears
1134: to be a very hard one. One must find a way of guaranteeing that all
1135: proper submatrices with any number of zeroes above the diagonal have a nonzero determinant and do so with additional
1136: constraints coming from the Toeplitz structure. In~\cite{ToepArray}, a method is given for
1137: constructing, for any prime number $p$, a triangular Toeplitz array of
1138: dimension $p$ having the property that all full square submatrices
1139: have a nonzero determinant. Unfortunately, there is no way of
1140: extending this construction to the much more general situation we
1141: consider here.
1142:
1143: In~\cite{gl03r}, the following result is proven:
1144: \begin{theo}\label{TotPos}
1145: Let $X$ be the $\gamma\times \gamma$ matrix given by
1146: \begin{equation*}
1147: X:=\left[\begin{array}{cccccc}
1148: 1&0&\cdots&\cdots&\cdots&0\\
1149: 1&1&\ddots&&&\vdots\\
1150: 0&1&1&\ddots&&\vdots\\
1151: \vdots&\ddots&\ddots&\ddots &\ddots&\vdots\\
1152: \vdots&&\ddots&1&1&0\\
1153: 0&\cdots&\cdots&0&1&1\\
1154: \end{array}\right].
1155: \end{equation*}
1156: Then,
1157: \begin{equation*}
1158: X^{\gamma -1}=\left[\begin{array}{cccccc}
1159: 1&0&\cdots&\cdots&\cdots&0\\
1160: {\gamma -1\choose 1} &1&\ddots&&&\vdots\\
1161: {\gamma -1\choose 2} &{\gamma -1\choose 1}&1&\ddots&&\vdots\\
1162: \vdots&\vdots&\ddots&\ddots &\ddots&\vdots\\
1163: {\gamma -1\choose \gamma -2}&\gamma -1\choose {\gamma -3}&\cdots&{\gamma
1164: -1\choose 1}&1&0\\
1165: 1&\gamma -1\choose {\gamma -2}&\cdots&\cdots&{\gamma -1\choose 1}&1
1166: \end{array}\right],
1167: \end{equation*}
1168: where ${\gamma\choose \omega }$=$\frac{\gamma !}{\omega !(\gamma -\omega )!}$,
1169: is totally positive over the real numbers. Thus, for a sufficiently
1170: large prime number $p$, taking the entries of this matrix modulo $p$ gives
1171: a superregular matrix.
1172: \end{theo}
1173: This result gives a construction insofar as one knows that, modulo a large enough
1174: prime number, the matrix $X^{\gamma -1}$ is superregular. It is not clear,
1175: however, how one may give a good bound as to how large $p$ must be for a given
1176: $\gamma$.
1177:
1178: \noindent
1179:
1180:
1181: \bibliographystyle{Bib}
1182: \bibliography{SR2}
1183:
1184: \end{document}
1185: