This Article 
   
 Share 
   
 Bibliographic References 
   
 Add to: 
 
Digg
Furl
Spurl
Blink
Simpy
Google
Del.icio.us
Y!MyWeb
 
 Search 
   
Large Response to 'Comments on `An O(n2.5) Fault Identification Algorithm for Diagnosable Systems''
January 1995 (vol. 44 no. 1)
pp. 162-162

Abstract—Radoytchevsky and Shalaev in their correspondence claimed to find systems which are not $t_{p}$-diagnosable under the PMC model yet satisfy the conditions for $t_{p}$-diagnosable systems in a characterization given by Dahbura and Masson. In this reply, we explain why the authors are incorrect in their assertion.

Index Terms—Connection assignment, diagnosable system, graph models, PMC model, syndrome, system-level diagnosis.

[1] V. Tz. Radoytchevsky and A. Ja. Shalaev, “Comments on `An O($n^{2.5}$) fault identification algorithm for diagnosable systems,'” IEEE Trans. Comput., vol. 43, no. 2, pp. 254255, Feb. 1994.
[2] A. T. Dahbura and G. M. Masson, “An O($n^{2.5}$) fault identification algorithm for diagnosable systems,” IEEE Trans. Comput., vol. C-33, no. 6, pp. 486492, June 1984.
[3] F. P. Preparata, G. Metze, and R. T. Chien, “On the connection assignment problem of diagnosable systems,” IEEE Trans. Electron. Comput., vol. EC-16, pp. 848854, Dec. 1967.

Citation:
Anton T. Dahbura, Gerald M. Masson, "Large Response to 'Comments on `An O(n2.5) Fault Identification Algorithm for Diagnosable Systems''," IEEE Transactions on Computers, vol. 44, no. 1, pp. 162-162, Jan. 1995, doi:10.1109/TC.1995.10000
Usage of this product signifies your acceptance of the Terms of Use.