Authors´ Reply2

The comment is valid in that the authors followed the given algorithm G in footnote 1 to the letter to come to their conclusion. However, the spirit of the algorithm was somewhat misrepresented in the original paper. A clearer version for the algorithm G follows. The two additional tests claimed by the commentors do not arise if the following version is carried to the letter. And therefore our original assertion about the near minimality still seems valid. Similarly, the additional tests claimed by the commentors using procedure NR will be eliminated if the following version of algorithm G is used in procedure NR. This answers the commentors conclusion 2) in [1].