of corresponding to s = s1. It is straightforward to check, using (32), that P ud (C 4 ; ) (2 4 0 1)=2 8 for this . Therefore, C 4 is good. Substituting s = 0:6 in (34) shows that C 4 is improper.We complete the proof of Theorem 1. First, notice from Lemma 18 that for any (n; M ) q code C, C 4 is bad if n = M = q = 2 is not true, and C 5 is bad if n = M = q = 2. It is easy to check that if C is a (2; 2) 2 code of distance one, then C 2 is bad, and therefore, byProposition 1, C m is bad and improper for m 2. On the other hand, Lemma 19 shows that if C is a (2; 2)2 code of distance two, then C 3 is proper and C 4 is good but improper. Such codes are the only codes that are good if used four times. This confirms the results of Theorem 1 in case q = 2.Next, we assume that
New Extremal Self-Dual Codes of Length and Related Extremal Self-Dual Codes
Radinka Dontcheva and Masaaki Harada