X-Git-Url: https://bilbo.iut-bm.univ-fcomte.fr/and/gitweb/16dcc.git/blobdiff_plain/2cf19b6a4aa1800981fa0b35e6f555119b94910e..2600bcf75b0329f96238df06abcbfbfeb7feedab:/review.txt?ds=inline

diff --git a/review.txt b/review.txt
index 48cf92f..077a648 100644
--- a/review.txt
+++ b/review.txt
@@ -39,7 +39,7 @@ The removal of the Hamiltonian cycle adds an interesting twist to the N-cube, bu
 
 It would be also interesting to see the comparison of the theoretical and simulated bounds on tau.
 
---> JFC
+--> JFC (Fait)
 
 
 What is more, there are some basic mathematical errors that should not appear in such a paper. On page 6-7, a metric is defined. For the terms u, first per digit absolute difference is introduced, which then suddenly switches to absolute difference of the whole numbers! E.g., for 915 and 277, the first would give |9-2|, |1-7|, |7-5| = 7 6 2, while the other one is |972-277| = 695, which is just not the same.
@@ -54,7 +54,7 @@ Also, in the proof of Lemma 5.3., bitwise uniform randomness is shown (already q
 
 The level of English is borderline acceptable, it should be checked more carefully. For example, it is unclear why examples are "running". In the middle of page we find "With all this material" for which "Based on this setup" or something similar would be more appropriate; bottom of page 10 says "Basically, let consider" instead of "Basically, let us consider", and so on.
 
---> JFC
+--> JFC (fait)
 
 
 Based on all these observations the reviewer considers the paper not to be acceptable in the current form.