Your English writing platform
Discover LudwigExact(1)
Table 1 Comparison of Symbol Mapping for 4PPM and 4DPPM.
Similar(59)
Although the study design involves comparison of symbols within a warning symbol concept to tease apart complexity and comprehensibility, it was necessary to control the degree of plausibility of distractors across symbols within a given warning concept triplet.
Figure 5 Comparison of SER (Symbol error rate) versus SNR for ADO-OFDM and ASCO-OFDM with different constellation combinations.
Figure 11 shows a comparison of the symbol-timing estimation probability of the conventional ranging process and the proposed ranging process.
Open image in new window Fig. 3 Comparison of experimental (symbols) and numerical (solid lines) results of oxygen fluxes with increasing temperature for different thickness values of BSCF membranes.
These computational methods entailed the creation of increasingly sophisticated techniques for the comparison of strings of symbols that benefited from the formal study of algorithms and the study of dynamic programming in particular.
Figure 1 Comparison of for different symbol rates.
Fig. 8 Comparison of different SEFDM symbol detection schemes.
However, with the increase of TiO2 layers, the total thickness seems to be slightly thinner than the expected one, resulting from the reduced adsorption of DEZn on TiO2. Figure 2 Comparison of experimental (open symbol) and calculated (solid line) ellipsometric spectra (cosΔ and tanψ).
Let us mention for comparison that for the substitution weight matrix PAM250 and the amino acid frequency distribution from [ 19] the mean weight of symbol comparison is -0.863, which is estimated by the formula: ∑ i = 1.. n P i ∑ j = 1.. n P j S i j, where Pi is the probability of appearance of the i-th amino acid residue and S ij is the substitution weight.
Open image in new window Fig. 6 Comparison of N2 adsorption (blue symbols) and desorption (red symbols) isotherms at 77 K of a Li·Cu3 BTC 2 and b Na·Cu3 BTC 2 Table 1 Textural properties of Cu3 BTC 2, Li·Cu3 BTC 2, and Na·Cu3 BTC 2 Material BET surface area (m2 g−1) BJH pore volume (cm3 g−1) Mean pore diameter (nm) Cu3 BTC 2 1445 0.74 1.67 Na·Cu3(BTC)2 1433 0.74 1.10.74·Cu3(BTC)2 1445 0.74 2.0.74
Write better and faster with AI suggestions while staying true to your unique style.
Since I tried Ludwig back in 2017, I have been constantly using it in both editing and translation. Ever since, I suggest it to my translators at ProSciEditing.

Justyna Jupowicz-Kozak
CEO of Professional Science Editing for Scientists @ prosciediting.com