# Follow Up on Detecting Deficiencies: An Optimal Group Testing Algorithm

## TL;DR

This paper critiques and clarifies claims made in a 2017 article on an optimal group testing algorithm, correcting misconceptions and highlighting well-established results in the literature.

## Contribution

The author provides clarifications, corrections, and commentary on Zimmerman’s 2017 claims about optimal group testing algorithms, reaffirming established facts.

## Key findings

- Zimmerman's claims are contradicted by existing literature
- Corrections are provided for mistaken claims in Zimmerman (2017)
- Clarifications reinforce well-known group testing principles

## Abstract

In a recent volume of Mathematics Magazine (Vol. 90, No. 3, June 2017) there is an interesting article by Seth Zimmerman, titled Detecting Deficiencies: An Optimal Group Testing Algorithm. The claim in the summary is contradictory to well-known facts reported in the group- testing literature, which is easily verified, beginning with the work by Sobel and Groll (1959), which was cited by S. Zimmerman himself. Therefore, I feel compelled to offer a number of comments and clarifications. In addition, I have made some correction of mistaken claim made by Zimmerman (2017).