See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/224246031

Gaussian approximation of the LLR distribution for the ML and partial

marginalization MIMO detectors

Conference Paper in Acoustics, Speech, and Signal Processing, 1988. ICASSP-88., 1988 International Conference on · June 2011
DOI: 10.1109/ICASSP.2011.5946710 · Source: IEEE Xplore

CITATIONS READS
6 379

4 authors, including:

Jan-Åke Larsson
Linköping University
103 PUBLICATIONS 2,394 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Efficient Classical Simulation of Quantum Algorithms View project

Secure Energy-Time Entanglement Quantum Key Distribution View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Jan-Åke Larsson on 18 August 2014.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 GAUSSIAN APPROXIMATION OF THE LLR DISTRIBUTION
FOR THE ML AND PARTIAL MARGINALIZATION MIMO DETECTORS

Mirsad Čirkić, Daniel Persson, Erik G. Larsson, and Jan-Åke Larsson

Communication Systems Division and Information Coding Division,

Department of Electrical Engineering (ISY), Linköping University, SE-581 83 Linköping, Sweden.
{mirsad,danielp,erik.larsson,jalar}@isy.liu.se

ABSTRACT The PM method stands out because it provides, via a parameter r, a

We derive a Gaussian approximation of the LLR distribution con-
ditioned on the transmitted signal and the channel matrix for the
soft-output via partial marginalization MIMO detector. This detec-
tor performs exact ML as a special case. Our main results consist
of discussing the operational meaning of this approximation and a
proof that, in the limit of high SNR, the LLR distribution of interest
converges in probability towards a Gaussian distribution.
Index Terms— LLR distribution, MIMO detection, partial
marginalization
1. INTRODUCTION
In a multiple-input multiple-output (MIMO) system, one of the cen-
tral components at the receiving side is the detector. Generally, the
detector outputs consist of the log-likelihood ratio (LLR) values,
which indicate how certain we are on which bits have been transmit-
ted. It is desirable to determine the distribution of these LLR values.
For example, using this distribution, the mutual information between
transmitted and detected signal can be determined, which can then be
used to perform detection more efficiently computationally, see [1].
In the analysis of low-density parity-check (LDPC) codes, the LLR
distribution is a key component where a Gaussian approximation that
clear trade-off between the optimal soft maximum likelihood method
(exact LLR) and sub-optimal linear methods. We examine the dis-
tribution of the PM outputs for all values of r, which can be set to
evaluate exact LLR values with PM.
Contributions: We study, for different signal-to-noise ratio (SNR)
regions, the distribution of the PM outputs in a MIMO setting, which
includes soft ML outputs as a special case. In particular, we give an
analytical expression of the approximation error when Gaussianity
is assumed, which has not been done before, not even for the ML
case. We show that, for high SNR, the distribution of the PM outputs
conditioned on the transmitted signal converges in probability to a
Gaussian distribution. We also discuss the operational meaning of
the proposed approximation.
2. PRELIMINARIES
We use a rewritten complex-valued MIMO channel model as
y = Hs + e (1)
N0 NR ×NT
where e ∼ N (0, 2
I), y ∈ R , s ∈ S , and H ∈ R
NR NT

fulfills the so called symmetry condition is common, see [2]. In the is perfectly known. In what follows, we assume NR ≥ NT since it
simple case with a binary additive white Gaussian noise (BIAWGN) simplifies the mathematics performed in this paper and is typical in
channel, the LLR distribution conditioned on the transmitted signal practice. Without loss of generality, assume BPSK (S = {−1, +1})
is well-known to be Gaussian. In a system with multiple inputs, such and consider detection of the first bit throughout this document. With
as MIMO, or with larger constellations, this is not the case though. uniform a priori probabilities, the LLR for the first bit is
However, it is common to use a Gaussian distribution in these cases ⎛  ⎞
1 2
as well, see [2] and [3]. The reason is its mathematical tractability i∈I1 exp − N0 y − Hsi 
and in many cases applicability by the central limit theorem. Earlier Λ(y)  log ⎝   ⎠, (2)
1 2
work regarding the LLR distribution consider only scalar channels, i∈I0 exp − N0 y − Hsi 
see [3] and [4]. In [3], an expression of the asymptotic bit-error rate
is derived. In [4], an optimal linear approximation of the LLR values where the set Ix contains the indexes of symbol vectors si ∈ S NT
is derived in capacity sense for partial channel-state knowledge. for which the 1:st bit is equal to x ∈ {0, 1}. Before we continue, let
In MIMO detection, a full-blown LLR evaluation is computa- us look at the simple example mentioned in the introduction with a
tionally very expensive and the LLR values can not be computed ex- BIAWGN channel, i.e., NR = NT = 1,
actly. There are different detectors that approximate the LLR values
− N1 (y−h)2
in a computationally feasible fashion, such as the soft-output via par- p(y|s = +1) e 0 4yh
tial marginalization (PM) detector in [5], [6], and others in [7], [8]. Λ(y) = log = log = ,
p(y|s = −1) − N1 (y+h)2 N0
e 0

This work was supported in part by the Swedish Research Council (VR),
the Swedish Foundation of Strategic Research (SSF), and the Excellence
Center at Linköping-Lund in Information Technology (ELLIIT). E. G. Lars-
son is a Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences (KVA) Research Fellow sup-
ported by a grant from the Knut and Alice Wallenberg Foundation. The
Monte Carlo simulations in this paper were carried out at the National Su-
percomputer Centre in Linköping Sweden (www.nsc.liu.se).
2 2
which implies that, conditioned on s, Λ(y) ∼ N (± 4h , 8h ).
N0 N0
This is however not the case in MIMO nor in the scalar case with
higher order constellations since (2) contains multiple summations.
In what follows, we present a slightly modified version of the
PM method in [5], see [6]. In order to explain PM, we use the fol-

978-1-4577-0539-7/11/$26.00 ©2011 IEEE 3232 ICASSP 2011

lowing partitioning Theorem 1. The function l(e) in (4a) converges in probability for
   T high SNR towards the approximation l̂(e) in (6), i.e., for small N0
Hs = H̄ H̃ s̄T s̃T = H̄s̄ + H̃ s̃, and ∀ > 0 there exist constants C1 > 0 and C2 > 0 such that
        C
col. permut. of H permut. of s − 2
P |l̂(e) − l(e)| >  ≤ C1 e N0 .
where H̄ ∈ RNR ×(r+1) , H̃ ∈ RNR ×(NT −r−1) , s̄ ∈ S r+1 con- Proof. See App. A.
tains the bit of interest (1:st bit in the original vector s), and s̃ ∈
S NT −r−1 . The permutation ordering is chosen with the aim to min- Theorem 1 implies that the random variable l(e) is for small N0
imize the condition number of H̃, see [5]. The PM method is ob- ⎛  ⎞
tained via a two-step approximation of (2): the sums in (2) asso-  2 2
 v 0  2 v 0 
ciated with s̃ are approximated with a maximization and then this l(e) = L(y) ∼ N ⎝ , ⎠. (7)
maximization is approximated with a zero-forcing (ZF) evaluation. s N0 N0
Hence, the PM detector is
⎛ The intuition behind the linearization in (6) is that we extract, prob-
  2 ⎞
1   abilistically, the dominant terms in the numerator and denominator
⎜ Ī exp − y − H̄ s̄ i − H̃ s̃ZF (i, y)  ⎟
i∈ 1 N 0 of (3a). The approximation error will then most likely become small
L(y)  log ⎜ ⎝  2 ⎟ ,
1   ⎠ for N0 1 since the Gaussian distribution of e becomes narrow
i∈Ī0 exp − N0 y − H̄ s̄i − H̃ s̃ZF (i, y) around e = 0.
(3a)
where the set Īx contains all possible indexes of s̄i ∈ S r+1 for 4. OBSERVATIONS AND INTERPRETATIONS
which the bit of interest is equal to x ∈ {0, 1},
  Recall that the detection accuracy in terms of LLR values is deter-
 
s̃ZF (i, y)  argmins̃ ∈S NT −r−1 ˆs̃ZF (i, y) − s̃  , (3b) mined by the √ ratio between the LLR mean and standard deviation,
i.e., v 0  / 2N0 . The larger this quantity is, the more certain we
and are that bit 1 has been transmitted. By disregarding the ZF clipping
ˆs̃ZF (i, y)  (H̃ T H̃)−1 H̃ T (y − H̄ s̄i ). (3c)
   in (3b) and letting s̃zf (i, 0) ≈ ˆs̃zf (i, 0) in (4), we have
†
H̃
v 0 ≈ H̄(s̄ − s̄0 ) + H̃(s̃ − ˆs̃zf (0, 0))
Note that PM is soft ML for r = NT − 1 and soft ZF for r = 0. †
= H̄(s̄ − s̄0 ) + H̃(s̃ − s̃ − H̃ H̄(s̄ − s̄0 ))
†
3. MAIN RESULT: GAUSSIAN APPROXIMATION = (I − H̃ H̃ )H̄(s̄ − s̄0 ) = Π⊥
H̃ H̄(s̄ − s̄0 ).

Our aim is to obtain a Gaussian approximation of the distribution
of L(y) in (3a) conditioned on s, i.e., p(L(y)|s). To do this, we
rewrite (3a) explicitly as a function of the noise e in a mathemati-
cally tractable fashion and linearize. Let us thus define
l(e)  L(Hs + e), s̃zf (i, e)  s̃ZF (i, Hs + e), (4a)
ˆs̃zf (i, e)  ˆs̃ZF (i, Hs + e) = H̃ † (H̄s̄ + H̃ s̃ + e − H̄s̄i )
† †
= s̃ + H̃ H̄(s̄ − s̄i ) + H̃ e,
(4b)
where s in (1) is known. Keep in mind that the functions with capital
letters L and (·)ZF take the argument y whereas the same functions
with small letters l and (·)zf take the argument e. Without loss of
generality, we have assumed that the true vector s̄ is found in the
numerator of (3a) and that in the denominator, the vector s̄0 ∈ {s̄i :
i ∈ Ī0 } is closest to the true vector s̄ in terms of the metric v i ,
v i  H̄(s̄ − s̄i ) + H̃(s̃ − s̃zf (i, 0)) ∀i ∈ Ī0 ∪ Ī1 . (5)
Recall that the intersection Ī0 ∩ Ī1 = ∅ is empty. The linearization
of l(e) in (4a) that we derive is
v 0 2 2v T e
l̂(e)  + 0 , (6)
N0 N0
where v 0  argminvi ∀i∈Ī0 v i . We assume that v 0 is uniquely
defined1 with probability one. Note that the mean of ˆl(e) is positive
since s̄ is assumed to be found in the numerator of (3a).
We can observe that:
• The norm v 0  ≈ ||Π⊥ H̄(s̄ − s̄0 )|| is large when the
H̃
columns of H̄ are orthogonal to the column space of H̃. In
other words, the norm v 0  is likely to be large when H is
well-conditioned.
• The spans of H̄ and of Π⊥ H̃
increase with r, which suggests
that v 0  and thus detection performance does the same.
ˆ
• The distribution
 ofl(e) fulfills
 thesymmetry condition in [9]
ˆ
since Vare l(e) = 2Ee l̂(e) , which is a fundamental
condition in density evolution in modern coding theory.
• The linear LLR in (6) can be associated with the binary de-
tection problem that distinguishes between the two symbol
vectors s̄ and s̄0 . At high SNR, this is a good approximation
since the detector errors will mostly follow from confusing
s̄ and s̄0 . This is equivalent to detection over a BIAWGN
channel, which in our case when ZF clipping is disregarded
consists of the two points Π⊥ H̃
H̄ s̄ and Π⊥
H̃
H̄s̄0 .
• When we increase SNR, the constellation points in terms of
LLR means are moving further away from each other faster
than what the LLR standard deviation is increasing, see (7).
• According to Theorem 1, the approximation error is small
with a probability that goes exponentially fast to one, which
indicates analytically that the Gaussian distribution is a key
component in the LLR distribution.
1 Basically, the channel matrices that yield non-unique v lie in a space
0
with dimension strictly smaller than the whole space.

3233
 CE = 27.3, r = 0 CE = 80.5, r = 0 CE = 27.3, r = 0 CE = 43.3, r = 0 ill-conditioned H (κ(H) ≈ 70)
rCE 27.3 43.3 61.4 80.5
p p p p
0 1.1327806 1.5195682 1.5345142 0.4181846
-60 -30 0 30 60 90 120 0 150 300 450 0 20 40 20 40 60 80 1 0.1184548 0.0383142 0.0176418 0.0020565
l̂(e) l̂(e) l̂(e) l̂(e)
2 0.1838109 0.0455121 0.0062638 0.0000569
CE = 27.3, r = 0 CE = 80.5, r = 0 CE = 27.3, r = 0 CE = 43.3, r = 0
3 0.1447524 0.0377483 0.0061711 0.0000563
p p p p 9 (ML) 0.1721505 0.0401805 0.0029932 0.0000073
-60 -30 0 30 60 90 120 0 150 300 450 0 20 40 20 40 60 80 well-conditioned H (κ(H) ≈ 4)
l(e) l(e) l(e) l(e) rCE 20.4 27.3 35 43.3
CE = 27.3, r = 1 CE = 80.5, r = 1 CE = 27.3, r = 1 CE = 43.3, r = 1
0 0.0187406 0.0029192 0.0000061 0.0000014
p p p p 1 0.0140127 0.0021493 0.0000002 0.0000021
2 0.0102622 0.0034864 0.0000469 0.0000036
-40 -20 0 20 40 60 80 100
l̂(e)
300 320
l̂(e)
340 360 0 20
l̂(e)
40 20 40
l̂(e)
60 80
3 0.0073968 0.0022437 0.0000260 0.0000007
CE = 27.3, r = 1 CE = 80.5, r = 1 CE = 27.3, r = 1 CE = 43.3, r = 1 9 (ML) 0.0054353 0.0001602 0.0000003 0.0000000

p p p p averaged over H
rCE 20.4 27.3 35 43.3
-40 -20 0 20 40 60 80 100
l(e)
300 320
l(e)
340 360 0
l(e)
20 40 20 40
l(e)
60 80
0 0.0614536 0.0597663 0.0563492 0.0520577
CE = 27.3, r = 9 CE = 80.5, r = 9 CE = 27.3, r = 9 CE = 43.3, r = 9 1 0.0360959 0.0325092 0.0312120 0.0305311
2 0.0254651 0.0207668 0.0191031 0.0186884
p p p p 3 0.0265090 0.0175610 0.0135940 0.0104095
0 20 40 180 200 220 0 20 40 20 40 60 80
4 0.0034151 0.0010697 0.0007791 0.0000195
l̂(e) l̂(e) l̂(e) l̂(e)
CE = 27.3, r = 9 CE = 80.5, r = 9 CE = 27.3, r = 9 CE = 43.3, r = 9
Table 1. Kullback Leibler Divergence for different SNR and r
p p p p values. Three different tables are presented for three different
0 20 40 180 200 220 0 20 40 20 40 60 80
settings: the ill-conditioned matrix H used in Fig. 1, the well-
l(e) l(e) l(e) l(e) conditioned matrix H used in Fig. 1, and an average over 3000
channel matrices
 Hin Rayleighfading. The ergodic capacity
Fig. 1. Histogram comparison for l̂(e) and l(e). We have ran- CE  EH log 2 det I + HN0H
T
is used as a proxy for SNR.
domly selected an ill-conditioned H with κ(H) ≈ 70 (the two
columns of histograms to the left with darker background) and a
well-conditioned H with κ(H) ≈ 4 (the two columns √ to the right).
The horizontal axis, l̂(e) and l(e), are scaled with N0 to keep the posed Gaussian distribution in Sec. 3. For small N0 , it converges in
variance of the histograms constant. The ergodic capacity defined in probability to this Gaussian distribution. The main idea behind the
Tab. 1 is used as a proxy for SNR. proposed linearization in (6) is essentially the log-max approxima-
tion. We can see that the PM distribution is multi-modal for small
r values when H is ill-conditioned, and that higher values of r or
One of the important practical benefits of (6) is that the minimization SNR are required for the LLR distribution to resemble a Gaussian
of interest in v 0 spans only over 2r possible candidate solutions and one than when H is well-conditioned. Additionally, on the average
can be efficiently solved. This simplifies numerical evaluations of over H, the KLD decays rapidly when increasing SNR or the pa-
the mutual information I(L(y); s), for instance. rameter r, which indicates that, in Rayleigh fading, the majority of
channel matrices are sufficiently well-conditioned for our approxi-
mation to be accurate. In Sec. 4, we give several interpretations on
5. NUMERICAL RESULTS the approximation we made in (6).

We use empirical distributions (histograms) and the Kullback-

Leibler divergence (KLD) to compare the true and approximated A. PROOF OF THEOREM 1
distributions. We show how the error of our approximation behaves
for different SNR values and matrix H condition numbers. We use
We start by distinguishing between two sets of noise vectors e: the
QPSK modulation and a complex 5 × 5-MIMO system, which is
set of vectors e that have no impact on the ZF evaluations in (4a)
transformed into an equivalent real-valued 10 × 10-MIMO system
Z = {e : s̃zf (i, e) = s̃zf (i, 0) ∀i ∈ Ī0 ∪ Ī1 } and the set of their
with BPSK.
√ The complex channel matrices are generated with i.i.d.
CN (0, 2) elements. We plot and compare the histograms of the complement Z  . The linearization in (6) is performed on the next
page in (8) where noise free ZF evaluations (e ∈ Z) are considered,
samples drawn from the expressions l(e) in (4a) and l̂(e) in (6).
which is the important case. In the opposite case, the linearization
This is done for one ill-conditioned matrix (κ(H) ≈ 70) and one
is not of interest as will be clear in the proof. Further, without loss
well-conditioned matrix (κ(H) ≈ 4). Using the same matrices, we
of generality, we have in (8) assigned s̄1 ∈ {s̄i : i ∈ Ī1 } to be
evaluate the KLD, which we investigate on the average over 3000
the vector in the numerator equal to the true vector s̄ and thus yields
matrices H as well. The simulations are performed for different
v 1 = 0. Hence, for small N0 ,
values of SNR and PM complexity levels r, see Fig. 1 and Tab. 1.
   
P |l̂(e) − l(e)| <  = P |l̂(e) − l(e)| <  ∩ e ∈ Z
6. CONCLUSIONS  
+ P |l̂(e) − l(e)| <  ∩ e ∈ Z 
We have shown in the general MIMO case that the output LLR dis-  
tribution of PM in [5] and [6] is well-approximated with the pro- ≥ P |l̂(e) − l(e)| <  ∩ e ∈ Z .

3234
 vi
⎛    2 ⎞
   ⎛  ⎞
− 1
 H̄(s̄ − s̄i ) + H̃(s̃ − s̃zf (i, 0)) +e  v i 2 +2v T
i e
⎜ i∈Ī1 exp ⎟ exp −
˜ = log ⎜ ⎟
N0 i∈Ī1 N0
l(e) ⎜  2 ⎟ = log ⎝   ⎠
⎝  1   ⎠ exp −
v i 2 +2v T
i
e
i∈Ī0 exp −  H̄(s̄ − s̄i ) + H̃(s̃ − s̃zf (i, 0)) +e  i∈Ī0 N0
N0
  
vi (8)
⎛    ⎞
v 2 +2v T e
v 0 2 2v T0 e 1 + i∈Ī1 \1 exp − i N0 i
= + + log ⎝   2 2 T
⎠
N
 0 
N0
 1 + i∈Ī0 \0 exp − vi  −v0 N+2(v
0
i −v 0 ) e

lin. approx. l̂(e)   

error term

Before we continue, let us define a more compact notation where: maximum does the same, d) P {A ∩ B} = P {B} − P{A ∩ B} for
events A and B, e) P {A ∪ B} ≤ P {A} + P {B} for events A and
ṽi  v i 2 ∀i ∈ Ī1 , ẽi  2v Ti e ∀i ∈ Ī1 , B, f ) P {A ∩ B} ≤ P {A} for events A and B, g) the probabil-
2 2
ṽi  v i  − v 0  ∀i ∈ Ī0 , ẽi  2(v i − v 0 )T e ∀i ∈ Ī0 . ity P {e ∈ Z} goes exponentially fast to 1 with decreasing N0 and
  Var {ẽi } is a multiple of N0 where  is positive for small N0 . The
Now, a lower bound of P |l̂(e) − l(e)| <  ∩ e ∈ Z is desired, rest follows from straight-forward calculations.
   
P |l̂(e) − l(e)| <  ∩ e ∈ Z = P |l̂(e) − l̃(e)| <  ∩ e ∈ Z B. REFERENCES
⎧ ⎛    ⎞ ⎫
⎨ 1 + i∈Ī1 \1 exp − ṽiN+ẽi 
 ⎬ [1] M. Čirkić, D. Persson, and Erik G. Larsson, “Optimization of
= P log ⎝  ⎠ <  ∩ e ∈ Z
0
  computational resource allocation for soft MIMO detection,” in
⎩ 1+ exp − ṽi +ẽi  ⎭ Proc. 43:rd Asilomar Conference on Signals, Systems and Com-
i∈Ī0 \0 N0
!    puters, 2009, pp. 1488–1492.
(a) 
≥ P log 1 + i∈Ī1 \1 exp − ṽiN+ẽ
0
i
[2] S.-Y. Chung, T.J. Richardson, and R.L. Urbanke, “Analysis of
   " sum-product decoding of low-density parity-check codes using
 a Gaussian approximation,” IEEE Transactions on Information
+ log 1 + i∈Ī0 \0 exp − ṽiN+ẽ i
<∩e∈Z
0
Theory, vol. 47, no. 2, pp. 657–670, Feb. 2001.
⎧ ⎫
(b) ⎨ #   ⎬ [3] N. Sellami, A. Roumy, and I. Fijalkow, “A proof of convergence
≥P exp − ṽiN+ẽi
<  ∩ e ∈ Z of the MAP turbo-detector to the AWGN case,” IEEE Transac-
⎩ 0 ⎭
i∈Ĩ(Ī1 ∪Ī0 )\{0,1} tions on Signal Processing, vol. 56, no. 4, pp. 1548–1561, Apr.
! " 2008.
≥ P max −(ṽi + ẽi ) < N0 log(/|Ĩ|) ∩ e ∈ Z [4] A. Alvarado, L. Szczecinski, R. Feick, and L. Ahumada, “Dis-
i∈Ĩ
! " tribution of L-values in Gray-mapped M 2 -QAM: Closed-form
≥ P max −ẽi < min ṽi + N0 log(/|Ĩ|) ∩e ∈ Z approximations and applications,” IEEE Transactions on Com-
i∈Ĩ i∈Ĩ munication, vol. 57, no. 7, pp. 2071–2079, Jul. 2009.
  
 [5] E. G. Larsson and J. Jaldén, “Fixed-complexity soft MIMO de-
⎧ ⎫
⎨$ ⎬ tection via partial marginalization,” IEEE Transactions on Sig-
(c)
=P −ẽi <  ∩ e ∈ Z nal Processing, vol. 56, no. 8, pp. 3397–3407, Aug. 2008.
⎩ ⎭
i∈Ĩ [6] D. Persson and E. G. Larsson, “Partial marginalization soft
⎧ ⎫
⎨% ⎬ MIMO detection with higher order constellations,” IEEE Trans-
(d)
= P {e ∈ Z} − P −ẽi >  ∩ e ∈ Z actions on Signal Processing, vol. 59, no. 1, pp. 453–458, Jan.
⎩ ⎭ 2011.
i∈Ĩ
(e) # & ' [7] E. Viterbo and J. Boutros, “A universal lattice code decoder for
≥ P {e ∈ Z} − P −ẽi >  ∩ e ∈ Z fading channels,” IEEE Transactions on Information Theory,
i∈Ĩ vol. 45, no. 5, pp. 1639–1642, Jul. 1999.
(f ) # & '
≥ P {e ∈ Z} − P −ẽi >  [8] L.G. Barbero and J.S. Thompson, “Fixing the complexity of
the sphere decoder for MIMO detection,” IEEE Transactions
i∈Ĩ
on Wireless Communications, vol. 7, no. 6, pp. 2131–2142, Jun.
#  (g) C
− N2 2008.
= P {e ∈ Z} − Q ( ≥ 1 − C1 e 0 ,
i∈Ĩ
Var {ẽi } [9] T.J. Richardson, M.A. Shokrollahi, and R.L. Urbanke, “De-
sign of capacity-approaching irregular low-density parity-check
where C1 and C2 are strictly positive constants. We have used the codes,” IEEE Transactions on Information Theory, vol. 47, no.
following mathematical relations: a) triangle inequality, b) log(1 + 2, pp. 619–637, Feb. 2001.
α) ≤ α for any α ≥ 0, c) all elements fulfill an < inequality iff their

3235

View publication stats