1: \begin{definition}

2: \label{defn-jordan-trig-trig-law}

3:   The triggering strategy used

4: in this paper, despite presence of the jammer, is as follows:

5: \begin{align}                                                               

6:   \label{eqn-jordan-trig-law-jammer}

7:   t^{*}_{k,n}\in& \left\{ l\tau_{\lambda} \ \big| l\tau_{\lambda} \in

8:   [(n-1)T, (n-1)T+ \supscr{\subscr{T}{off}}{cr}] \right\}\cup\nonumber

9:   \\ & \left\{ nT \right\}\,.

10: \end{align}

11: 

12:   We note that based

13: on Theorem~\ref{thm-jordan-trig-seq-tau-lambda}, and for a given $T$,

14: we can find a $\lambda_{c}$ so that the multiples of $\tau_{\lambda}$

15: lie in the desired interval, i.e., the set introduced

16: in~\eqref{eqn-jordan-trig-law-jammer} is never empty.  The triggering

17: law introduced in our recent paper~\cite{HSF-SM:12-cdc} has inspired

18: this strategy. The main difference between both laws is the choice of

19: triggering times. While here we adapt the triggering sequence via an

20: appropriate choice of $\tau_{\lambda}$ that depends on the jammer,

21: in~\cite{HSF-SM:12-cdc} we study when the time-sequence generated

22: by~\eqref{eqn-prop-event-trig-cond} is sufficient to beat a given

23: jammer.  

24: 

25: In~\eqref{eqn-jordan-trig-law-jammer}, $k\in\mathbb{N}$ denotes the

26: number of triggering times occurring in the $\supscr{n}{th}$ jammer

27: action-period, and $l\in\mathbb{N}$ stands for the multiples of

28: $\tau_{\lambda}$ starting from $l=1$ in the first period and adding up

29: afterwards.

30: \end{definition}

31: