Skip to content

Good Classical Codes Have Linear Matroid Pathwidth

Claim/Theorem

Let \(C\) be an [n,k,d] linear code over a finite field, and let \(M(C)\) be its associated vector matroid. Then

\[ \operatorname{pw}(M(C)) \;\in\; \Omega\!\left(\frac{k(d-1)}{n}\right). \]

More explicitly, combining [[good-codes-have-some-linear-cut-rank.md]] with [[matroid-pathwidth-equals-code-trellis-width.md]] gives

\[ \operatorname{pw}(M(C)) \;=\; \operatorname{tw}_{\mathrm{trellis}}(C) \;\ge\; \frac{k(d-1)}{n}. \]

Therefore every asymptotically good classical code family has linear matroid pathwidth.

Equivalently, every coordinate ordering of a good classical code has some prefix cut whose code or matroid connectivity is linear in blocklength, and the minimum possible such ordering-width remains linear.

Dependencies

  • [[good-codes-have-some-linear-cut-rank.md]]
  • [[matroid-pathwidth-equals-code-trellis-width.md]]

Conflicts/Gaps

  • This theorem is strong for genuinely good classical codes, but it does not apply to the CSS constituent codes \(C_0=\ker H_0\) and \(C_1=\ker H_1\) of qLDPC constructions, because those codes are not asymptotically good; see [[qldpc-css-constituent-codes-not-good.md]].
  • So the node sharpens the ordering route conceptually, but it does not by itself strengthen the Quantum Tanner frontier.

Sources

  • 10.48550/arXiv.0705.1384
  • 10.48550/arXiv.0805.2199
  • 10.48550/arXiv.0711.1383