deletions | additions       diff --git a/section_Abstract_This_paper_explores__.tex b/section_Abstract_This_paper_explores__.tex  index b8d2d24..31a64e7 100644  --- a/section_Abstract_This_paper_explores__.tex  +++ b/section_Abstract_This_paper_explores__.tex 
...
When we consider all four product form parameter sets, we get this table:  \begin{tabular}{ c c c c c c c c }  Set & N & $dF_1$ & $dF_2$ & $dF_3$ & |F3| & |F1||F2| & Expected work \\  10 & a & $\ell$ \\  11 & b & $\ell$ \\  \end{tabular}  This approach also has some advantage for the EES430EP1 parameter set (which has a design strength of 128); it has $N= 439$, $dF_1 = 9$, $dF_2 = 8$, and $dF_3 = 5$. This gives us a $z = 31$, and so scanning through the possible values of $G - F_3H$ takes $2^{114.173}$ time, and searching through the possible $F_1F_2$ combinations would take $2^{110.616}$ time on a Quantum Computer, giving us a total time of about $2^{115}$, which is smaller than the $2^{128}$ design strength.