文章大修回来，现在说是小修了，但是给的一下意见让我不知所措咯：
Reviewer(s)' Comments to Author:
Associate Editor
Comments to the Author :
Reviewer 2 further pointed out that "Clearly, the proposed theorem is delay-independent, and the reason is that the authors have not discussed \tau(k) but discussed \tau. Author should give a remark in the final manuscript. The authors seem don’t know the difference between the delay-dependent condition and delay-independent condition. Therefore, they cannot answer my question."
The authors do not satisfactorily answer the reviewer's question. So, the paper still needs to be revised and necessary answers to the reviewer's concerns should be provided and clarified.
Reviewer: 2
回复此楼
+5/245
