[guided]We want to argue that no point of $\mathbb{F}_2^n$ can be "far" from $C$. The key leverage is the maximality of $|C|$: if some point $x$ were at distance $\ge d$ from every codeword, then adjoining $x$ to $C$ would produce a strictly larger code with minimum distance still $\ge d$, contradicting that $C$ is already as large as possible.
Formally, suppose $x \notin C$ and $d(x, c) \ge d$ for every $c \in C$. Consider $C' = C \cup \{x\}$. For any two distinct elements $c_1, c_2 \in C'$:
- if $c_1, c_2 \in C$: then $d(c_1, c_2) \ge d$ because $C$ has minimum distance $\ge d$;
- if one of them is $x$, say $c_1 = x$ and $c_2 \in C$: then $d(x, c_2) \ge d$ by our supposition.
In either case $d(c_1, c_2) \ge d$, so $C'$ has minimum distance at least $d$. But $|C'| = |C| + 1 = m + 1 > m = A(n, d)$, violating the definition of $A(n, d)$ as the maximum.
This contradiction forces some $c \in C$ with $d(x, c) < d$, i.e., $d(x, c) \le d - 1$, meaning $x \in B(c, d-1)$. Combined with the trivial case $x \in C$ (where $x \in B(x, d-1)$), every point of $\mathbb{F}_2^n$ lies in the union of the $(d-1)$-balls around codewords.
This is a **covering** statement, dual to the *packing* statement used in the Hamming bound. Packing gives an upper bound on $|C|$ (the balls don't overlap, so they can't be too many); covering gives a lower bound on $|C|$ (the balls must fill the space, so there can't be too few).[/guided]