From: Karine Deschinkel Date: Tue, 22 Sep 2015 15:54:13 +0000 (+0200) Subject: ok X-Git-Url: https://bilbo.iut-bm.univ-fcomte.fr/and/gitweb/LiCO.git/commitdiff_plain/cb07c1bf8d966d3d30e0f7941dcbf5b7d9c301a5 ok --- 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}}\\