Instruction: Write an abstract for the following acadamic paper.

Input:
Paper: we have recorded the flight of a fly during take off and landing using digital high speed photography . it is shown that the dynamics of flexible wings are different for these procedures . during this observation fly flew freely in a big box and it was not tethered .
Abstract: in this fluid dynamics video , we demonstrated take off and landing of a fly . the deformation of wings is in focus in this video .

Paper: in the field of coding theory , calculations of good upper and lower bounds on the size of a code serves as a benchmark for code design . techniques of constructing subspace codes for error correction in random network coding ( also called ` projective space codes ' ) are similar to the techniques used to construct binary codes . a projective space code is defined as a subset of subspaces of a vector space . the viewpoint of lattice theory for projective space codes has already been suggested @xcite . a lattice is a partially ordered set in which any two elements have a least upper bound and a greatest lower bound . the set of all subspaces of a vector space is called a projective space and the set of all subsets of a set is called a power set . both the power set and the projective space form lattices under inclusion order . a ` lattice scheme ' is defined as a subset of a lattice . it has already been observed in @xcite that binary codes and projective space codes are lattice schemes . binary codes are power set schemes and projective space codes are projective space schemes . the lattice framework common to projective space codes and binary codes have also been observed in @xcite and @xcite . the authors of @xcite establish that the projective space codes are analogs of classical binary codes . they also investigate the notions of linearity and complements of a code . in @xcite , the relationship between binary codes and projective space codes is investigated thoroughly using the framework of lattices and a generalized notion of orthogonal complement is introduced for lattices . one of the ways to generate a bound on the code size is to capture a bare minimum structure for the bound through an appropriate mathematical abstraction and generalize the approach . for example , the introduction of ` association schemes ' captured the notion of sphere packing and sphere covering arguments in traditional coding theory @xcite and strengthened the bounds by a linear programming approach . in our paper , the notion of singleton bound is generalized using the framework of lattices . since error correcting codes for random network coding was proposed in @xcite , there has been a lot of activity in the theory of projective space codes . the authors of @xcite consider projective space codes in which all the subspaces are of the same dimension . such codes are called constant dimension codes . the koetter - kschischang singleton bound ( kks bound ) for constant dimension codes was derived and achieved asymptotically in @xcite .    in the case of binary codes , hamming distance between two binary vectors is a metric on the binary coding space . similarly the subspace distance , introduced in @xcite , between two subspaces of a vector space is a metric on the projective space . in a projective space , the number of elements in a sphere of a particular radius depends on the center of that sphere @xcite . however , in the case of binary codes , the number of elements in a sphere depends only on the radius of the sphere and not on the center of the sphere . so the subspace distance on the projective space behaves differently from the hamming distance on the usual binary vectors . as noted in @xcite , the anticode bound introduced in @xcite gives a setting in which one can get tighter sphere packing bounds for constant dimension codes . a close look at the bounds for subspace distance and non - existence of nontrivial perfect codes has been given in @xcite . an appropriate generalization for singleton bounds ( analogous to association scheme for sphere packing / covering bounds ) is not known yet . in this paper , we propose that the lattice framework is appropriate for generalizing singleton bounds . we derive an upper bound on the size of a lattice scheme , which will be called lattice singleton bound ( lsb ) for the remainder of the paper . we get the kks bound and the classical singleton bound as special cases of the lsb . while most results in projective space codes assume that the dimensions of the subspaces in the code are constant , a few papers in literature have considered codes with non - constant dimension . in particular , the authors of @xcite derive a gilbert - varshamov type bound , which we will term as ` etzion vardy- gilbert varshamov bound ' ( ev - gvb ) , for non - constant dimension codes . we derive a _ new _ upper bound on the code size for non - constant dimension codes by applying the lsb to the projective lattice . to the best of our knowledge , our singleton bound is the first upper bound for non - constant dimension codes . the construction of constant dimension codes have been the main focus in the field of code constructions for projective spaces . the first constant dimension subspace codes introduced in @xcite achieve the kks bound asymptotically . and there is no known code constructions that exactly achieve the singleton bound proposed in @xcite . the question of achieving that singleton bound is an open question . a large class of constant and non - constant dimension codes using ferrer s diagrams and lifted rank metric codes are constructed in @xcite . the authors of @xcite report marginal improvements over the size of the code compared to the codes of @xcite . a plot of code sizes of the codes reported in @xcite compared to a plot of our upper bound shows that both the reported codes have code sizes that are close to optimal . this also establishes that our upper bound is tight for atleast certain coding parameters . the contributions of this paper are as follows :    1 . we derive a singleton bound in the framework of lattices . we recover the singleton bound for binary codes and the singleton bound for constant dimension subspace codes ( kks bound ) as special cases of our lsb . we obtain a new singleton bound for non - constant dimension subspace codes . we compare our bound on the code size with the code sizes of non - constant dimension codes found in the literature . we also compare our upper bound with a gilbert - varshamov type lower bound . the plots reveal that our bound is tight for certain parameters of the code . the paper is organized as follows : we introduce the preliminaries of lattices in section [ sec_lat_prelims ] . section [ sec_lat_sch ] introduces the idea of lattice schemes where it is shown that classical codes and subspace codes are both lattice schemes . section [ sec_main_res ] introduces the singleton bound in the framework of lattice schemes and contains the main theorem of this paper . section [ sec_main_res ] contains the main distinguishing feature of projective space codes which we believe make singleton type bounds weak in projective spaces . in section [ sec_upp_bou ] , we obtain a new upper bound for non - constant dimension codes and plot our upper bound with ev - gvb along with different codes constructed in the literature . finally , in section [ sec_conc ] , we conclude by summarizing our contributions and discussing the scope for future work .    _ notations : _ a set is denoted by a capital letter and its elements will be denoted by small letters ( for example , @xmath0 ) . the set @xmath1 is defined as @xmath2 . all the sets considered in this paper will be finite . given a set @xmath3 , @xmath4 denotes the number of elements in the set and for a subset @xmath5 of @xmath3 , @xmath6 denotes the complement of the set @xmath5 in @xmath3 . for two sets @xmath5 and @xmath7 , @xmath8 denotes the cartesian product of the two sets , i.e. @xmath9 . @xmath10 represents the symmetric difference of sets , i.e. @xmath11 . a lattice will be denoted by @xmath12 and sometimes we will drop the join and the meet notation , simply calling it @xmath13 . @xmath14 denotes the finite field with @xmath15 elements where @xmath15 is a power of a prime number . @xmath16 denotes all the non zero elements of @xmath14 . the symbol @xmath17 denotes a vector space ( generally over @xmath14 ) . for a subset @xmath18 of @xmath17 , @xmath19 denotes the linear span of all the elements in @xmath18 . given two subspaces @xmath5 and @xmath7 , @xmath20 denotes the smallest subspace containing both @xmath5 and @xmath7 . let @xmath17 be a @xmath21 dimensional space over @xmath14 . then the symbol @xmath22 denotes the grassmanian , i.e. the set of all @xmath23 dimensional subspaces of @xmath17 . the number of elements in @xmath22 is denoted as @xmath24 . @xmath25 denotes the @xmath21 dimensional vector space of @xmath21-tuples over @xmath14 . given a vector @xmath26 , @xmath27 denotes the @xmath28-th co - ordinate of @xmath29 . the support of @xmath26 ( denoted by @xmath30 ) is defined as the set of indices where the vector is non - zero . @xmath31 denotes the vector space @xmath25 with the hamming metric , i.e. @xmath32 . this section serves as a quick introduction to lattice theory . all the lattice theory definitions and theorems required for the rest of the paper are given in this section . we follow notations and definitions from @xcite . [ def_poset_order ] a _ poset _ is a pair @xmath33 , where @xmath34 is a set and @xmath35 is a binary relation ( called the _ order relation _ ) on the set @xmath34 satisfying :    1 . ( reflexivity ) for all @xmath36 2 . ( antisymmetry ) if @xmath37 , then @xmath38 3 . ( transitivity ) if @xmath39 , then @xmath40    for the remainder of the paper , @xmath34 denotes a poset with @xmath35 as the order relation . if @xmath41 and @xmath42 , then we use the shorthand @xmath43 . @xmath41 is read as `` x is less than y '' or `` x is contained in y '' .    an _ upper bound _ ( _ lower bound _ ) of a subset @xmath3 of @xmath34 is an element @xmath44 containing ( contained in ) every @xmath45 . the _ least upper bound _ ( _ greatest lower bound _ ) of @xmath3 is the element of @xmath34 contained in ( containing ) every upper bound ( lower bound ) of @xmath3 . if a least upper bound , or a greatest lower bound of a set exists , it is unique due to the antisymmetry property of the order relation ( definition [ def_poset_order ] ) . the least upper bound of a set @xmath3 is denoted by sup @xmath3 and the greatest lower bound is denoted by inf @xmath3 .    a _ lattice _ @xmath13 is a poset which has the property that @xmath46 , the sup@xmath47 exists and inf@xmath47 exists . the sup@xmath47 is denoted by @xmath48 ( read as `` a _ join _ b '' ) and the inf@xmath47 is denoted by @xmath49 ( read as `` a _ meet _ b '' ) . the lattice itself is denoted by @xmath12 . we will assume , for the purposes of the paper , that all the lattices are finite and have a unique greatest element denoted by @xmath50 , and a unique least element denoted by @xmath51 . a _ sublattice _ of a lattice @xmath13 is a subset @xmath52 of @xmath13 that satisfies the following condition : @xmath53    a map @xmath54 from @xmath13 to @xmath52 is said to be a _ lattice homomorphism _ if it satisfies the following conditions :    1 . @xmath55 2 . @xmath56    further , if @xmath54 is bijective , then we say that @xmath13 and @xmath52 are _ let @xmath57 and @xmath58 denote the power set of @xmath3 . we can view @xmath59 as a poset where set inclusion is the order relation . the power set under this order is a lattice . for any subsets @xmath5 and @xmath7 , @xmath60 and @xmath61 . further , the lattice generated by subsets of @xmath62 is a sublattice . notice that @xmath63 and @xmath64 . @xmath65    one can completely specify an order of a poset ( finite ones ) by a _ hasse diagram _ , like the one shown in fig . [ fig_power_set ] . if @xmath66 and there is no @xmath67 such that @xmath68 , we say that `` @xmath69 _ covers _ @xmath70 '' . in the hasse diagram of a lattice , @xmath70 and @xmath69 are joined iff @xmath69 covers @xmath70 or @xmath70 covers @xmath69 . the diagram is drawn in such a way that if @xmath69 covers @xmath70 , then @xmath69 is written above @xmath70 . clearly , @xmath66 iff there exists a path from @xmath70 moving up to @xmath69 . the order relation is completely specified by such a diagram . naturally , @xmath50 will be the topmost element and @xmath51 will be the lowest element .    ): a lattice of subsets ]    for a set @xmath3 , @xmath71__pow(@xmath3)__@xmath72 will denote lattice of the power set of @xmath3 with union and intersection as join and meet of the lattice respectively . a lattice @xmath12 is _ distributive _ if the following conditions hold :    1 .   for all @xmath73 2 .   for all @xmath74 it is immediate that for any set @xmath3 , @xmath71__pow__(@xmath3)@xmath72 is a distributive lattice . however all lattices are not distributive , as seen in the examples below . let @xmath17 be a vector space of dimension @xmath21 over a field @xmath75 . the class of all the subspaces of @xmath17 , denoted by @xmath76 , can be ordered under inclusion in a manner similar to a set . the join of two subspaces @xmath5 and @xmath7 will then be the smallest subspace containing both @xmath5 and @xmath7 . this means that @xmath77 and the largest subspace contained in both @xmath5 and @xmath7 is @xmath78 . so the meet of @xmath5 and @xmath7 is @xmath78 . such a lattice will be denoted as @xmath79 . clearly @xmath80 and @xmath81 . this lattice will be called the _ projective lattice_.    this lattice is not distributive . to see this , we consider the vector space @xmath82 over @xmath83 . the hasse diagram of @xmath84 is shown in fig . [ fig_subspace ] . here , @xmath85 , @xmath86 and @xmath87 . clearly , @xmath88 and thus @xmath84 is not distributive . @xmath84 is identified by the name _ m@xmath89_. @xmath65    : a lattice of subspaces , also called @xmath90    the above lattice is not distributive , i.e. @xmath91 fails for three distinct subspaces @xmath92 . if @xmath93 , one can prove that @xmath94 and thus it behaves partly distributively . this property is captured in the following definition :    a lattice @xmath12 is _ modular _ if the following condition holds : + ( modularity ) if @xmath95 , then @xmath96    if the lattice is distributive , the modularity condition holds . this means that _ any distributive lattice is modular_. however @xmath79 is a modular lattice that is non distributive . the observation that for @xmath71__pow(@xmath3)__@xmath72 , any two elements @xmath97 satisfy @xmath98 , and in an analogous fashion , for @xmath79 , any two elements @xmath97 satisfy @xmath99 , seems to suggest that modular lattices must satisfy an equation of the form @xmath100 for some real - valued function @xmath101 on the lattice . this is indeed true and in turn , such a function helps characterise modular lattices . we need the following few definitions and results to make the characterisation precise . an _ isotone valuation _ on a lattice @xmath13 is a real valued function @xmath101 on @xmath13 that satisfies :    1 . ( valuation ) for all @xmath102 , @xmath103 2 . ( isotone ) @xmath104    additionally , the isotone valuation is called _ positive _ , if @xmath105 . @xmath106 is said to be the distance induced by @xmath101 . * pg.230 , th.1 ) [ thm_pseudo_metric ] given a lattice @xmath13 and an isotone valuation @xmath101 , the function @xmath107 is a metric iff @xmath101 is positive . in general , @xmath108 is a pseudo metric .    in a lattice @xmath12 , a _ chain _ @xmath109 is a subset of @xmath13 with the property that for all @xmath110 , @xmath66 or @xmath111 . we say that in a chain , any two elements are comparable . given two elements @xmath112 , a chain @xmath113 of @xmath13 with the property @xmath114 is called a _ chain between @xmath70 and @xmath69_. the _ length _ of the chain is defined as @xmath23 . the _ height _ of an element @xmath29 in a lattice @xmath13 is the maximum length of a chain between @xmath51 and @xmath29 . it is denoted by @xmath115 .    the number @xmath116 is called _ the height of the lattice _ @xmath13 or the _ dimension of _ @xmath13 . note that the chain from @xmath51 to @xmath51 contains only one element , and thus @xmath117 . we need an additional property to characterise modular lattices . a lattice is said to have the _ jordan - dedekind property _ if all maximal chains between two elements have the same finite length . all lattices need not have the jordan - dedekind property . for example , in the @xmath118 lattice , shown in fig . [ fig_hasse_diag_n_5 ] , there are two maximal chains from @xmath119 to @xmath120 . the maximal chain @xmath121 has three units of length and the other maximal chain @xmath122 has a length of two units . thus @xmath118 does not satisfy the jordan dedekind property . it turns out that modularity is closely related to this property . lattice : a lattice without jordan - dedekind property ]    [ jd ] ( * ? ? ? * pg.41 , th.16 ) let @xmath12 be a lattice of finite length with the height function @xmath123 , then the following conditions are equivalent :    1 . @xmath13 is a modular lattice . 2 .   @xmath13 has the jordan - dedekind property and @xmath123 is a valuation . the @xmath118 lattice shown in fig . [ fig_hasse_diag_n_5 ] does not satisfy the jordan - dedekind property and therefore , due to theorem [ jd ] , @xmath118 is non - modular . the height function @xmath123 is a positive isotone evaluation for modular lattices . therefore from theorem [ thm_pseudo_metric ] , the distance function induced by @xmath123 is a metric on the modular lattice . all the lattices , considered in this paper , will be modular . we will use this observation in the next section to define a coding metric for the definition of lattice schemes . we , therefore , have the following proposition which follows from theorem [ thm_pseudo_metric ] .    [ thm_height_metric ] let @xmath13 be a modular lattice of finite length with the height function @xmath123 , then @xmath124 is a metric on @xmath13 . clearly @xmath125=1 $ ] iff @xmath29 covers @xmath51 . such elements are called _ atoms _ of the lattice . the atoms of the lattice are analogues of the singletons in lattice of sets ( one dimensional spaces in the lattice of subspaces ) . a _ geometric modular lattice _ is a modular lattice of finite height in which every element is a join of atoms . further , if the geometric modular lattice is distributive , then it will be called _ geometric distributive_.    the lattice of subsets is a an example of a geometric distributive lattice and the lattice of subspaces is an example of a geometric modular lattice . is shown . in part ( b ) , a non - geometric , non - distributive modular lattice @xmath126 is depicted . ] however , all modular ( distributive ) lattices are not geometric . for example , consider the sublattice ( in fact , a chain ) @xmath127 of @xmath71__pow(@xmath128)__@xmath72 ( shown in part ( a ) of fig . [ fig_nongeometric ] ) . @xmath129 is not geometric because @xmath128 can not be obtained as a join of atoms of @xmath130 ( since there is only one atom in @xmath129 ) . @xmath129 is distributive since it is a sublattice of distributive lattice viz . therefore @xmath130 is an example of non - geometric distributive lattice .    in order to construct a non - geometric non - distributive modular lattice , we will consider a sublattice of @xmath131 . for the sake of presentation , we will represent a vector @xmath132 by the natural number @xmath133 . for example , @xmath134 will be represented as @xmath135 . consider the sublattice @xmath136 of @xmath131 . @xmath126 is modular since it is a sublattice of a modular lattice viz . @xmath126 is not distributive because it contains a copy of @xmath137 as a sublattice ( @xmath137 is non - distributive ) . it can be verified that @xmath138 can not be obtained as a join of atoms of @xmath126 and thus @xmath126 is non - geometric . therefore @xmath126 is an example of non - geometric non - distributive modular lattice . henceforth all the lattices are assumed to be geometric modular unless otherwise mentioned . in order to develop a lattice based framework for singleton bounds , we need a definition of a code in this framework . in this section , we define ` lattice schemes ' which will serve as analogues of codes . we will show that hamming space , rank metric space and the projective spaces are examples of lattice schemes . although some of these observations have been mentioned in @xcite , we repeat it for the sake of continuity .    a lattice scheme , which is analogous to a code , is defined as follows :    let @xmath13 be a lattice and @xmath139 be the metric induced by the height function @xmath123 of the lattice @xmath13 . a _ lattice scheme _ @xmath109 in @xmath140 is a subset of @xmath13 and the _ minimum distance of @xmath109 _ , denoted by @xmath119 is defined as @xmath141 the dimension of a lattice scheme is defined as @xmath142 . a coding space @xmath143 is a metric space where @xmath3 is a set and @xmath144 is a metric on @xmath3 . a code @xmath109 in a coding space @xmath143 is a subset of @xmath3 . the connection between lattice schemes and codes is made precise in the following definition . [ def_transform ] let @xmath109 be a lattice scheme in @xmath140 and @xmath145 be a code in a coding space @xmath146 . we say that the _ code _ @xmath145 is _ equivalent to a lattice scheme _ @xmath109 , if there exists a function @xmath147 , that satisfies the following conditions :    1 . @xmath148 2 . @xmath149 for all @xmath150    @xmath151 is called a transform for the code @xmath145 . a transform @xmath151 of a code is one - one . to prove this fact , assume @xmath152 , then @xmath153 . by 2 ) of definition [ def_transform ] , this would imply @xmath154 . and since @xmath144 is a metric , we have @xmath155 . @xmath65    when a lattice scheme is equivalent to a code , we also say the code is equivalent to the scheme . a transform for a code preserves the distance between any pair of codewords . therefore whenever a lattice scheme is equivalent to a code , the lattice scheme will have the same minimum distance as the code . the following proposition follows from definition [ def_transform ] ,    [ prop_dist_preserve ]    let @xmath109 be a lattice scheme with minimum distance @xmath119 that is equivalent to code @xmath145 with minimum distance @xmath156 , then    1 . @xmath157 2 .   if @xmath158 , then there exists @xmath159 such that the lattice scheme @xmath5 is equivalent to the code @xmath160    since ` @xmath109 is equivalent to @xmath145 ' , the first part follows from the definition . for the second part , since @xmath109 is equivalent to @xmath145 , there exists a transform @xmath151 . we define @xmath161 . clearly @xmath159 and the function @xmath151 still serves as a lattice transform for the code @xmath162 . thus @xmath5 is equivalent to @xmath162 .    due to the above proposition , given a lattice scheme equivalent to a code , we can talk of the minimum distance without specifying whether it is the minimum distance of the code or the minimum distance of the scheme . from the second part of the proposition [ prop_dist_preserve ] , we can infer that the subsets of codes are equivalent to certain subsets of schemes . therefore , if we prove that a coding space itself is equivalent to some lattice , then any code in the coding space is equivalent to a scheme in the lattice . we use this observation to establish that every binary code is equivalent to a scheme in the power set lattice . [ exmpl_binary_codes ]    let @xmath163 , @xmath164_pow(@xmath3)_@xmath72 and @xmath165 . @xmath13 is a geometric distributive lattice and @xmath166 as seen in the previous section . consider codes in the coding space @xmath167 where @xmath168 is the hamming distance between two vectors . we claim that the entire coding space @xmath169 is equivalent to the power set lattice @xmath13 . to see this let , @xmath170 it can be verified that @xmath171 ( where @xmath172 represents the symmetric difference operator ) and that @xmath173 is onto . further , @xmath174 . the number of elements in @xmath175 will be the hamming weight of @xmath176 . thus @xmath177 . therefore , @xmath173 is the power set lattice transform for the binary code .    since the map is onto , @xmath173 is a bijective map . by application of the second part of proposition [ prop_dist_preserve ] , we see that every binary code is equivalent to a power set lattice scheme . @xmath65    the lattice of subspaces , discussed in the previous section , also provide examples of lattice schemes . in a projective lattice , the metric induced by the height function is the subspace distance . therefore , any subspace code is equivalent to a lattice scheme in the projective lattice .    let @xmath17 be a vector space over @xmath178 is a projective lattice with height function @xmath179 . the coding space is @xmath180 where @xmath181 represents the subspace distance defined in @xcite . for any two subspaces @xmath5 and @xmath7 , @xmath182 . since @xmath183 , the metric induced by the height function is the subspace distance . the identity map can be a transform in this case . and thus , subspace schemes are equivalent to subspace codes.@xmath65    lattice schemes in the above lattice correspond to subspace codes in projective spaces @xcite . certain constant dimension subspace code constructions , described in @xcite , make use of the rank distance gabidulin codes @xcite . the rank metric codes are actually equivalent to gabidulin codes since they are ` lifted ' from gabidulin codes . we show that rank distance codes are equivalent to certain schemes in the projective lattice . we also show that the lifting function is a transform . let @xmath184 denote the space of @xmath185 matrices over @xmath14 . for @xmath186 , define @xmath187 . this coding space is the rank distance space . we claim that the rank distance space is equivalent to a scheme in the projective lattice . consider the projective lattice @xmath188 with the height function @xmath179 . define a transform @xmath151 as follows : @xmath189 } \end{aligned}\ ] ]    notice that @xmath190 for any @xmath5 in @xmath191 . therefore subspaces whose dimension is not @xmath192 are not in the range of @xmath151 . therefore @xmath151 is an example of a transform that is not onto . the function @xmath151 defined above is called the lifting of @xmath5 in @xcite . the authors of @xcite establish that @xmath193 . thus rank metric codes are equivalent to schemes in the projective lattice and @xmath151 is the projective lattice transform for the rank metric code . @xmath65 all our main results on the bounds and their behavior are derived in this section . we introduce the notion of puncturing a scheme and investigate the effects of puncturing on the minimum distance of a lattice scheme . it will be proved that , after puncturing a scheme , the maximum drop in minimum distance will be two . however , if the lattice is known to be distributive , it is shown that the maximum drop in minimum distance is one . this observation will be applied repeatedly until the minimum distance drops to zero . we will need the following definition of _ whitney number of the second kind _ , from @xcite , to state the lattice singleton bound :    the _ whitney numbers _ @xmath194 of a lattice @xmath13 in a lattice with height @xmath123 and @xmath195 is defined as @xmath196    the whitney numbers of a lattice count the total number of elements in the lattice of a given height .    a scheme @xmath109 is said to be _ punctured to @xmath197 _ if @xmath198 for some @xmath199 . if @xmath200 has a height of @xmath201 , the scheme @xmath109 is said to be _ punctured by a dimension_.    note that for a @xmath199 , @xmath202 is a sublattice of @xmath13 @xcite . for two lattice elements @xmath200 and @xmath203 of equal height , we have @xmath204 . this means that the whitney numbers of two different punctured lattices remain the same , as long as the elements that puncture the scheme are of the same height . we need the following lemma ( called the ` distance drop lemma ' ) to establish the proof of the main theorem later . [ lem_drop_dist ]    let @xmath109 be a scheme in @xmath140 with minimum distance @xmath119 , and let @xmath109 be punctured by a dimension to @xmath197 , then    1 .   @xmath13 is distributive @xmath205 @xmath206 2 .   in general , @xmath207    proof of 1 ) : we assume @xmath13 is distributive . let @xmath208 , @xmath209 and @xmath210 . we have to show that @xmath211 for all @xmath212 . by the definition of @xmath139 , @xmath213 - h[\tilde{a } \wedge \tilde{b } ] . \end{aligned}\ ] ] since the lattice is distributive , we can write it as , @xmath214 - h[a \wedge b \wedge w ] . \end{aligned}\ ] ] the height function is a valuation and thus satisfies @xmath215 + h[x \wedge y ] = h[x ] + h[y]$ ] . we use this in the above equation to obtain , @xmath216 + h[w ] - h[a \vee b \vee w ] - h[a \wedge b \wedge w ] . \end{aligned}\ ] ] since @xmath217 , it must be that @xmath218 \leq h[i ] = n$ ] . using this inequality and @xmath219 = n-1 $ ] , we get @xmath220 + ( n-1 ) - n - h[a \wedge b \wedge w ] . \end{aligned}\ ] ] clearly @xmath221 and therefore @xmath222 \leq h[a \wedge b]$ ] . using this , the definition of @xmath223 and the fact that @xmath119 is the minimum distance of the scheme @xmath109 , we finally get @xmath224    proof of 2 ) : we have to show that @xmath225 for all @xmath212 . again by the definition of @xmath139 , @xmath226 - h[\tilde{a } \wedge \tilde{b}].\end{aligned}\ ] ] repeatedly using the fact that the height function is a valuation and thus satisfies @xmath215 + h[x \wedge y ] = h[x ] + h[y]$ ] , we get , @xmath227 + h[b ] + 2h[w ] - h[a \vee w ] \\ - h[b \vee w ] - 2h[a \wedge b \wedge w ] . \end{aligned}\ ] ] clearly @xmath221 and therefore @xmath222 \leq h[a \wedge b]$ ] . additionally @xmath228 and @xmath229 , which means @xmath230 , h[\tilde{b } ] \leq h[i ] = n$ ] . using this inequality and @xmath219 = n-1 $ ] , we get the following : @xmath231 + h[b ] + 2(n-1 ) - 2n - 2h[a \wedge b ] \end{aligned}\ ] ] using the definition of @xmath223 and the fact that @xmath119 is the minimum distance of the scheme @xmath109 , we finally get , @xmath232    the distance drop lemma states that in a non - distributive lattice , the drop in the minimum distance after puncturing a dimension , can be at most two units . so it would be interesting to know if it is possible that the drop of two units is exhibited by some scheme in a non - distributive lattice . the following example constructs such a scheme . [ example_proj_space ] let @xmath17 be a three dimensional space , over @xmath233 , spanned by @xmath234 . let @xmath235 @xmath236 , @xmath237 @xmath238 and @xmath239 @xmath240 . we have @xmath241 but @xmath242 . note that @xmath243 ( that is , the sublattice generated by @xmath244 , @xmath245 and @xmath246 is not distributive ) as expected . if our scheme contained @xmath247 and @xmath246 , then puncturing the scheme with @xmath246 would have left @xmath246 as it is and punctured only the remaining two subspaces . the above example clearly illustrates that the lack of distributivity in a lattice can drop the distance of a punctured scheme by two units . we will now derive a singleton bound for lattice schemes , that establishes an upper bound on the cardinality of the scheme , for a given minimum distance for geometric modular lattices . [ theorem_lsb ] if @xmath248 is a geometric modular lattice with height @xmath123 and @xmath249 , @xmath139 is the metric induced by the height function , and @xmath109 is a scheme of @xmath13 with minimum distance @xmath119 , then @xmath250 where    1 . @xmath251 , when @xmath13 is _ distributive _ , 2 . @xmath252 , when @xmath13 is _ modular_.    given the lattice @xmath13 , pick an element @xmath200 of height @xmath253 ( which always exists in a geometric modular lattice ) . now puncture the lattice by a dimension to get a new geometric modular lattice @xmath129 with height @xmath253 and suppose that drop in minimum distance of the scheme , after puncturing a dimension , is at most @xmath254 . if @xmath255 is the minimum distance of the punctured scheme @xmath197 , then @xmath256 . if @xmath257 , then all elements in the punctured scheme @xmath197 are still distinct . we repeat the puncturing operating on the new lattice . the puncturing is repeated maximum number of times so that the minimum distance of the punctured scheme does not drop to zero . in other words , we keep puncturing the lattice , until the minimum distance of the punctured scheme is just short of zero . let us say that the original lattice was punctured @xmath258 times . since the minimum distance of the punctured scheme is still non zero , the punctured scheme contains exactly the same number of elements as @xmath109 . at this stage , the minimum distance of the scheme is non - zero and all the elements of the punctured scheme are in a lattice of height @xmath259 . clearly the number of elements in the scheme @xmath109 is upper bounded by the total number of elements in the punctured lattice . thus @xmath260 if the minimum distance of the scheme , after being punctured @xmath258 times , is @xmath261 , then @xmath262 and @xmath261 is the smallest number such that @xmath263 . this implies that @xmath264 . from the lemma [ lem_drop_dist ] , we know that @xmath265 for a distributive lattice and @xmath266 for a modular lattice . thus @xmath267 for a distributive lattice and for a modular lattice , @xmath252 . this completes the proof . we remark that the bound does not equal @xmath268 , for the case @xmath269 , which should yield only two elements . the bound is weaker for large minimum distance because we have no information about the range of heights of the elements of the scheme . we can tighten the bound by systematically puncturing and projecting a dimension as done in @xcite . also , as noted in example [ example_proj_space ] , puncturing a dimension of a scheme does not reduce the heights of the elements of the scheme in a uniform manner . so we need the following definition ,    given two elements @xmath270 and @xmath200 in a lattice @xmath13 , define @xmath271 to be equal to an element of height @xmath272 that is contained in @xmath273 . in particular , if @xmath200 is fixed and @xmath274 , the set @xmath275 is said to be _ punctured and projected by a dimension_.    thus when @xmath276 , @xmath271 is arbitrarily chosen to be an element immediately below @xmath270 in the hasse diagram of the lattice . for all other cases , @xmath277 . the following example illustrates that puncturing a dimension reduces the heights of different elements of a scheme by different amounts . it also demonstrates that puncturing and projecting by a dimension equally reduces the heights of all elements of a scheme . in example [ exmpl_punc_proj ] is shown here . the dark arrow shows that after puncturing and projecting by @xmath246 both @xmath244 and @xmath245 can drop to the same subspace @xmath278 . however , puncturing by @xmath246 alone drops @xmath245 to @xmath278 but not @xmath244 . ] [ exmpl_punc_proj ] let @xmath17 be a three dimensional space , over @xmath233 , spanned by @xmath234 . let @xmath235 @xmath279 , @xmath237 @xmath280 and @xmath239 @xmath279 . [ fig_puncture ] shows how puncturing and projecting drops the heights of all elements by one unit . thus the dimension of @xmath244 remains the same after puncturing by @xmath246 but the dimension of @xmath245 drops by one unit . however , after puncturing and projecting the lattice by @xmath246 , both @xmath244 and @xmath245 drop by a height of one unit . to be precise , define @xmath281 and observe that @xmath282 . but @xmath283 . to define @xmath284 we need to choose a one dimensional subspace of @xmath244 . for instance , we can choose @xmath285 . @xmath65    we can now establish that puncturing and projecting a dimension of a scheme can drop the minimum distance of the scheme by at most two units . this lemma is useful since it tells us that every time we puncture and project by a dimension , all the elements in the scheme drop once in height . [ lemma_punctured_drop ] let @xmath109 be a scheme in a lattice @xmath140 with minimum distance @xmath119 , and let @xmath249 and let @xmath199 such that @xmath286 . if the maximum height of @xmath109 was @xmath287 and the minimum height of @xmath109 was @xmath192 , then the maximum height of @xmath288 is @xmath289 and the minimum height is @xmath290 . additionally @xmath291    by definition of @xmath288 , all the elements of @xmath288 have lost a unit of height . so the only thing to establish is that @xmath292 . the proof is very similar to the previous lemma .    by the definition of @xmath139 , @xmath293 + h[\overline{b \wedge w } ] - 2h[\overline{a \wedge w } \wedge \overline { b \wedge w } ] . \end{aligned}\ ] ] from the definition of @xmath294 , it follows that @xmath295 and thus @xmath296 \leq h[x \wedge w]$ ] for all @xmath297 and thus , @xmath298 - 1 ) + ( h[b ] - 1 ) - 2h[a \wedge b ] \end{aligned}\ ] ] and therefore from the formula for height we get , @xmath299    we will need lemma [ lemma_punctured_drop ] to get the following improvement on the code size ,    [ thm_tighter_bound ] let @xmath109 be a scheme in a geometric modular lattice @xmath13 with minimum distance @xmath119 . let @xmath192 denote the smallest height of all the elements in @xmath109 and @xmath287 denote the largest height of all the elements in @xmath109 . then , @xmath300    let @xmath200 be an element of height @xmath253 and @xmath301 . by lemma [ lemma_punctured_drop ] , the punctured and projected scheme in @xmath129 has a maximum height of @xmath302 , a minimum height of @xmath290 and a minimum distance drop of at most two units . now the proof proceeds in a manner similar to the proof of the theorem [ theorem_lsb ] . after puncturing @xmath303 times , the elements of the scheme will have a maximum height of @xmath304 and a minimum height of @xmath305 and the theorem is proved .    we will now apply theorem [ theorem_lsb ] and theorem [ thm_tighter_bound ] to two important lattice schemes ( namely the power set lattice and the projective lattice ) and derive the corresponding lsb . the lsb that we obtain coincides with the singleton bound found in the literature . first , we derive the classical singleton bound as a corollary to the lsb theorem . let @xmath109 be a code in @xmath306 , with minimum distance @xmath119 , then @xmath307    in example [ exmpl_binary_codes ] , @xmath308 is the number of subsets of size @xmath309 in the scheme @xmath109 , given that @xmath310 . using the fact that @xmath13 is geometric and distributive , @xmath251 . first we observe that , @xmath311 and @xmath312 applying the lsb theorem , we get ,    @xmath313 which is the singleton bound for @xmath306 . now we derive the kks bound reported in @xcite . it follows as a direct corollary to theorem [ thm_tighter_bound ] when the lattice is chosen to be the lattice of subspaces .    if @xmath314 and @xmath315 , then @xmath316    let @xmath317 where @xmath109 is chosen to be a subset of the grassmanian @xmath22 . then @xmath314 and the lattice coefficients @xmath318 . now apply theorem [ thm_tighter_bound ] to @xmath109 . the distance drop lemma , used in the main theorem , along with example [ example_proj_space ] clearly shows that at every step of puncturing the distance can drop by at most two units . on the other hand , one can construct examples where distance drop is one unit . now suppose some scheme achieves the lsb ( and thus the kks bound ) . then that scheme has elements which consistently drop by a distance of two units _ irrespective _ of which element is puncturing it . and this should happen at every puncturing step until the minimum distance drops to zero . since this seems highly unlikely , we conjecture the following :    _ conjecture : _ there are no schemes that can achieve the lsb for projective spaces . in particular , there are no constant dimension codes that can achieve the kks bound . it is clear that many examples fit into the framework of lattice schemes and the proposed lsb specializes to the known singleton bounds in literature . in this section , we will show that the lsb gives a new upper bound when applied to projective spaces . a family of non - constant dimension code constructions in projective spaces have been reported by @xcite and @xcite . our lsb plots show that the code sizes , of both reported codes , are near optimal for certain fixed values of the coding parameters . singleton bound in projective spaces will be specified using gaussian numbers ( they are the @xmath15-analogues of binomials @xcite ) . lower bounds on code sizes based on sphere covering methods can be found in @xcite . upper bounds on code sizes for projective space codes , found in the literature , are for constant dimension codes . the following bound is an upper bound on the code size of a non - constant dimension code in a projective space . let @xmath109 be a code in @xmath319 ( where @xmath17 is vector space over @xmath14 ) , with minimum distance @xmath119 , then    @xmath320 where @xmath321 denotes the gaussian number . the @xmath322 lattice with @xmath323 is a modular geometric lattice . we note that    @xmath324 the gaussian number @xmath325 is the total number of @xmath52-dimensional subspaces of an @xmath326-dimensional space over @xmath14 and thus by theorem [ theorem_lsb ] ,    @xmath327 where @xmath328 . the bound is weak when the minimum distance @xmath119 is comparable to the code dimension @xmath21 . however when the minimum distance is smaller than code dimension , the tightness of the bound is not apparent . therefore we investigate the behaviour of our bounds , at such ranges , by plotting it with other bounds in the literature . we will compare our bound ( lsb ) to the gilbert varshamov bound ( ev - gvb ) proposed in @xcite for various values of the minimum distance . further , we will plot points achieved by various codes in the literature . the plot is shown in fig . [ fig_drawing ] . the minimum distance of the projective code and the finite field size has been fixed at @xmath329 and @xmath268 respectively , throughout this section . the plot clearly shows our upper bound above the ev - gv lower bound . the points marked etzsilb codes and khks code are the code parameters reported in @xcite and @xcite respectively , for @xmath330 and @xmath331 . [ fig_drawing ] shows that the etzsilb codes and khks codes are close to optimal for @xmath330 and @xmath331 . the khks code sizes are roughly @xmath332 bits away from the upper bound . it has already been observed that the distance drop in projective spaces is variable and thus we believe that our bound is weak for larger values of @xmath119 . in this paper , we introduced the notion of lattice schemes which serve as analogues of codes . we derived a general notion of singleton bound for which the classical singleton bound for binary codes and the singleton - like bound for constant dimension subspace codes were special cases . we proved that puncturing a dimension gives a tight bound for distributive lattices but not for projective lattices . however , it was seen that puncturing and projecting a dimension gives a tighter bound , for projective lattices . this leads us to conjecture that it is not possible to achieve the kks bound . the upper bound derived in the paper seems to be tighter when the minimum distance is much smaller than the code dimension . a next step would be to tighten the bounds for large minimum distances . it would be interesting to investigate whether there exists lattice schemes that achieve the lsb with equality . in particular , it would be very interesting to know if there exists a reed solomon - like scheme which specializes to the different counterparts in binary and subspace codes . also , whether quantum codes are lattice schemes can be investigated .
Abstract:

Answer: the binary coding theory and subspace codes for random network coding exhibit similar structures . the method used to obtain a singleton bound for subspace codes mimic the technique used in obtaining the singleton bound for binary codes . this motivates the question of whether there is an abstract framework that captures these similarities . as a first step towards answering this question , we use the lattice framework proposed in @xcite . a lattice is a partially ordered set in which any two elements have a least upper bound and a greatest lower bound . a ` lattice scheme ' is defined as a subset of a lattice . in this paper , we derive a singleton bound for lattice schemes and obtain singleton bounds known for binary codes and subspace codes as special cases . the lattice framework gives additional insights into the behaviour of singleton bound for subspace codes . we also obtain a _ new _ upper bound on the code size for non - constant dimension codes . the plots of this bound along with plots of the code sizes of known non - constant dimension codes in the literature reveal that our bound is tight for certain parameters of the code .