The search session has expired. Please query the service again.
The search session has expired. Please query the service again.
The search session has expired. Please query the service again.
The search session has expired. Please query the service again.
The search session has expired. Please query the service again.
The search session has expired. Please query the service again.
The search session has expired. Please query the service again.
The search session has expired. Please query the service again.
The search session has expired. Please query the service again.
The search session has expired. Please query the service again.
The search session has expired. Please query the service again.
The search session has expired. Please query the service again.
The search session has expired. Please query the service again.
The search session has expired. Please query the service again.
The search session has expired. Please query the service again.
The search session has expired. Please query the service again.
The search session has expired. Please query the service again.
The search session has expired. Please query the service again.
The search session has expired. Please query the service again.
The search session has expired. Please query the service again.
The search session has expired. Please query the service again.
The search session has expired. Please query the service again.
The search session has expired. Please query the service again.
The search session has expired. Please query the service again.
The search session has expired. Please query the service again.
The search session has expired. Please query the service again.
The search session has expired. Please query the service again.
The search session has expired. Please query the service again.
In the proof of Lemma 3.1 in [1] we need to show that we may take the two points p and q with p ≠ q such that
p+q+(b-2)g21(C′)∼2(q1+… +qb-1)
where q1,…,qb-1 are points of C′, but in the paper [1] we did not show that p ≠ q. Moreover, we hadn't been able to prove this using the method of our paper [1]. So we must add some more assumption to Lemma 3.1 and rewrite the statements of our paper after Lemma 3.1. The following is the correct version of Lemma 3.1 in [1] with its proof.
Download Results (CSV)