Skip to Main Content
In the footnote of J.M. Gomes da Silva, Jr. and S. Tarbouriech (see ibid., vol.50, no.1, p.110, 2005), we have stated that the value of 61.29 obtained by Y.Y. Cao et al. (2002) was apparently incorrect. In fact, the different values come from the fact that the example considered by Y.Y. Cao is slightly different from the one by J.M. Gomes da Silva, Jr. and S. Tarbouriech (2005). Hence, the result presented by Y.Y. Cao is indeed correct and we apologize to the authors for the misunderstanding.