From 22c2d9bbe8c4f327df1f703a2fd95350b3a53d27 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Robin Date: Sat, 8 May 2010 13:08:11 +0100 Subject: [PATCH] after Friday meeting with Andrew Fish --- .../component_failure_modes_definition.tex | 2 +- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) diff --git a/component_failure_modes_definition/component_failure_modes_definition.tex b/component_failure_modes_definition/component_failure_modes_definition.tex index 106be87..d580139 100644 --- a/component_failure_modes_definition/component_failure_modes_definition.tex +++ b/component_failure_modes_definition/component_failure_modes_definition.tex @@ -400,7 +400,7 @@ $$ FM(R) \in U $$ We can make this a general case by taking a set $F$ (where $f1, f2 \in F$) representing a collection of component failure modes. We can define a boolean function {\ensuremath{\mathcal{ACTIVE()}}} that returns -whether the fault mode is active (true) or dormant (false). +whether a fault mode is active (true) or dormant (false). We can say that if any pair of fault modes is active at the same time, then the failure mode set is not unitary state: