### Table VII. Simple Substitution Algorithm

2004

Cited by 6

### Table VII. Simple Substitution Algorithm

2004

Cited by 6

### Table 7.1: Simple Substitution Algorithm

### Table 3: Performance summary of different methods representation macro-p macro-r macro-F macro-p 60 macro-r 60 macro-F 60

2001

"... In PAGE 9: ...able 2: A simple visualization of terms from and issue of Time magazine...............................................44 Table3 : Performance summary of different methods.... In PAGE 61: ...Figure 21: macro-averaged f-measure in groups of 10 (from rare to common) The results shown in Table3 show a words macro f-measure slightly higher than Yang (Yang amp; Liu, 1999), recorded in the table as benchmark. This can probably be accounted for by either the use of a ... ..."

### Table 1. Comparison of Single Facility and Redundant Facility Reliabilities Scenario Single IT Facility

"... In PAGE 6: ... Figure 1. Simple Redundant IT System Configuration or Central Redundant Architecture (CRA) Previously, the rationale for this approach has been compelling because the chance of both facilities failing is much smaller than the chance of one facility failing, as seen in Table1 . As the reliability of each facility increases separately across the scenarios posed, the possibility of the redundancy method failing is dramatically reduced, from 1% to .... In PAGE 10: ...ndividual site reliabilities of 0.9, 0.95, and 0.99, respectively. Recognize that with 0-site failures we have 120% of organizational capacity available, for a 1-site failure we have 100% capacity, and for 2-site failures we have 80% capacity. If we compare the probabilities to those of CRA in Table1 , we see that 1-site failure (100% capacity) is still inferior to CRA. However, the 2-site failure (80%) capacity is superior to CRA.... ..."

### Table 1: Labeled -reduction and substitution

2000

"... In PAGE 10: ... Note that the subterms labeled with 37; 4; 7; 8 have no descendants; in particular a redex has no resid- uals after its contraction3. Also, according to this de nition, the function part ( x:M in the notation of Table1 ) of the redex leaves no residuals, nor the vari- ables substituted for. In the example, only the subterms labeled with 20; 2; 1; 0 do have a residual after the displayed reduction step.... In PAGE 61: ... As in the simply labeled -calculus (De nition 4.1, Table1 ) the labels are simple letters a; b; c; : : :. Now the tracing relation is given as before in the simply labeled -calculus, by identity of labels.... In PAGE 64: ... It characterizes complete developments, in the sense that M ?! N if and only if there is a complete development from M to N. M ?! M M ?! M0 x:M ?! x:M0 M ?! M0 N ?! N0 MN ?! M0N0 M ?! M0 N ?! N0 ( x:M)N ?! M0[x := N0] Table1 0: Parallel reduction a la Tait amp; Martin-Lof... ..."

Cited by 8

### Table 1: Labeled -reduction and substitution

"... In PAGE 8: ... Note that the subterms labeled with 37; 4; 7; 8 have no descendants; in particular a redex has no resid- uals after its contraction3. Also, according to this de nition, the function part ( x:M in the notation of Table1 ) of the redex leaves no residuals, nor the vari- ables substituted for. In the example, only the subterms labeled with 20; 2; 1; 0 do have a residual after the displayed reduction step.... In PAGE 59: ... As in the simply labeled -calculus (De nition 4.1, Table1 ) the labels are simple letters a; b; c; : : :. Now the tracing relation is given as before in the simply labeled -calculus, by identity of labels.... In PAGE 62: ... It characterizes complete developments, in the sense that M ?! N if and only if there is a complete development from M to N. M ?! M M ?! M0 x:M ?! x:M0 M ?! M0 N ?! N0 MN ?! M0N0 M ?! M0 N ?! N0 ( x:M)N ?! M0[x := N0] Table1 0: Parallel reduction a la Tait amp; Martin-Lof... ..."