From c8e05cb78f5b43e00af2c060404217cddfa173ad Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: "Robin P. Clark" Date: Mon, 23 Sep 2013 10:01:15 +0100 Subject: [PATCH] AHHHGGGGHHH hate this hate this --- submission_thesis/CH7_Evaluation/copy.tex | 2 +- submission_thesis/CH8_Conclusion/copy.tex | 2 ++ 2 files changed, 3 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) diff --git a/submission_thesis/CH7_Evaluation/copy.tex b/submission_thesis/CH7_Evaluation/copy.tex index e124267..2a37d2c 100644 --- a/submission_thesis/CH7_Evaluation/copy.tex +++ b/submission_thesis/CH7_Evaluation/copy.tex @@ -1440,7 +1440,7 @@ Their probabilities expressed as $P(B_4) = P(B_1 \cap B_3)$ and $P(B_5) = P(B_1 \section{Critiques} \subsection{Problems in choosing membership of {\fgs}} - +\label{subsec:choosingfgs} The choice of components for {\fgs} is one to be made by the analyst. % The guiding principle it to choose components that are functionally adjacent diff --git a/submission_thesis/CH8_Conclusion/copy.tex b/submission_thesis/CH8_Conclusion/copy.tex index f9f1de1..96b7980 100644 --- a/submission_thesis/CH8_Conclusion/copy.tex +++ b/submission_thesis/CH8_Conclusion/copy.tex @@ -207,6 +207,8 @@ structures of the FMMD hierarchy were used to analyse the same circuitry. % The same system level failure modes were obtained, but the more de-composed examples offered better performance in terms of comparison complexity. +%% +Potential problems of side effects and {\fg} membership choices are discussed in section~\ref{subsec:choosingfgs}. % Further work may be required to apply justification for the choice of membership in {\fgs}. %