X-Git-Url: https://bilbo.iut-bm.univ-fcomte.fr/and/gitweb/LiCO.git/blobdiff_plain/8274ac64b1e11ea5647ca1a0d1903038ac427f7a..900859cd09dd04b3dd6cbd7b932ad46d844a8cc6:/PeCO-EO/reponse2.tex?ds=sidebyside

diff --git a/PeCO-EO/reponse2.tex b/PeCO-EO/reponse2.tex
index bf2d52d..e559c19 100644
--- a/PeCO-EO/reponse2.tex
+++ b/PeCO-EO/reponse2.tex
@@ -113,9 +113,9 @@ ineffective for the smallest network sizes”. I suggest adjusting it to somethi
 outperforms PeCO when the coverage ratio is required to be $>90\%$, but PeCo extends the network
 lifetime significantly when coverage ratio can be relaxed. “ Also, can you add applications where
 you would want to have a coverage ratio of $50\%$? This seems like a very small ratio and as you
-increase it, DiLCO becomes the methodology that has the maximum network lifetime. If you don’t
-include application examples, your statement “Indeed there are applications that do not require a
-100$\%$ coverage of the area to be monitored.” stronger. }}
+increase it, DiLCO becomes the methodology that has the maximum network lifetime. If you don't
+include application examples, your statement "Indeed there are applications that do not require a
+100$\%$ coverage of the area to be monitored." stronger. }}
 
 \textcolor{green}{\textbf{\textsc{Answer:}  blbla}}\\