### Table 1. Conjectures proved by reuse

"... In PAGE 5: ... Apart from initial proofs provided by the hu- man advisor in the \prove quot; step, none of these steps necessitates human support. Thus the proof shell from Figure 3 can be automatically reused for proving the step formulas apos;s i of the apparently di erent conjectures apos;i given in Table1 below. This table illustrates a typical session with the Plagiator-system: At the beginning of the ses- sion the human advisor submits statement apos; (in the rst row) and a proof p of apos; to the system.... ..."

### Table 1. Conjectures proved and lemmata speculated by reuse Acknowledgements: We thank Stefan Gerberding for helpful comments.

1997

"... In PAGE 3: ...ne the alternatives of our reuse method w.r.t. analysis techniques and heuristics for retrieval and adaptation by performing experiments with Plagiator. Table1 illustrates some of these experiments.1 For each of the given conjec- tures in the second column, the third column points to the statement whose proof is reused and the fourth column shows the lemma speculated by reuse resp.... ..."

Cited by 4

### Table 1: Closure Properties, () is a Conjecture.

"... In PAGE 18: ... An nfb regular dag language is a regular dag language accepted by a deterministic not forward-blind dag automaton. Table1 presents some properties of the classes of regular, deterministic regular, nfb regular and semi rational dag languages. A dag language is semi rational if it is the dag semantics of some Petri net, see [13].... ..."

### Table 1: Hadamard upper bound Q6 on maxm (Am)= (A0) n

1992

"... In PAGE 53: ...he parallel pivoting discussed in Proposition 6.1, this growth could be eliminated. Now we consider the Hadamard based upper bound on Q5 from Proposition 6.6: Q5 Q6 e n H(H0) (A0) Table1 gives the maximum values of this upper bound for di erent values of dimension n and A (A0).... ..."

Cited by 87

### Table 3. Conjectures and helpful lemmata about +; ; exp

1996

"... In PAGE 13: ... The following table presents a collection of conjec- tures C and lemmata C0 which are speculated when proving C by induction. Column (a) in Table3 denotes the set of maximal symbols of conjecture C (which is a singleton for all examples here as exp gt;def gt;def +), (b) is the number of occurrences of the maximal symbol in C, (c) is the set of maximal symbols on recursive arguments, \Lemmata C0 quot; are the speculated lemmata, and column gt;F shows by which criterion of De nition 3 the conjecture-lemma pairs are related. For instance, conjecture C6 := (x+y)+(u+v) (x+u)+(y+v) from Table 3 can be proved by using either C4 or C3 and C5 as lemmata, and we have C6 gt;F C4 and C6 gt;F C3 as well as C6 gt;F C5.... In PAGE 13: ... Column (a) in Table 3 denotes the set of maximal symbols of conjecture C (which is a singleton for all examples here as exp gt;def gt;def +), (b) is the number of occurrences of the maximal symbol in C, (c) is the set of maximal symbols on recursive arguments, \Lemmata C0 quot; are the speculated lemmata, and column gt;F shows by which criterion of De nition 3 the conjecture-lemma pairs are related. For instance, conjecture C6 := (x+y)+(u+v) (x+u)+(y+v) from Table3 can be proved by using either C4 or C3 and C5 as lemmata, and we have C6 gt;F C4 and C6 gt;F C3 as well as C6 gt;F C5.12... In PAGE 13: ... The theorems T1; T3 ? T7; T12 ? T14; T16; T18; T20; T21; T23; T25 ? T50 are gt;F -larger than the lemmata speculated for them due to criterion (a) of gt;F .13 12 Table3 shows the lemmata for proving base and step cases of C, whereas Table 1 contains only the lemmata speculated for proving a step case of apos;i by reuse. 13 Theorems T36 ?T47 do not use lemmata at all.... ..."

Cited by 3

### Table 7: Effects of conjectured nonmember feedbacks.

1996

"... In PAGE 24: ... Thus, member industries approximate the (n ? m) non-member industries as a single external industry . Table7 illustrates the effect of incorporating this restrictive aggregated view of the outside world on the performance of three of the algorithms described in section 4. Each shows only a modest improvement.... ..."

Cited by 1

### Table 7: Effects of conjectured nonmember feedbacks.

1996

"... In PAGE 24: ... Thus, member industries approximate the n28n n00 mn29 non-member industries as a single external industry . Table7 illustrates the effect of incorporating this restrictive aggregated view of the outside world on the performance of three of the algorithms described in section 4. Each shows only a modest improvement.... ..."

Cited by 1

### Table 4. Unresolved conjectured harmonic optima.

2006

"... In PAGE 6: ... However, including reducible configurations would substantially lengthen Table 3 without adding much more geometrical content. Table4 lists two more unresolved cases. They both appear to be harmonic optima and are balanced, and we have not been able to prove or disprove universal optimality.... In PAGE 7: ... On the other hand, each is also analogous to a configuration we know or believe is universally optimal (240 points in R8 and 64 points in R14, respectively). We have not been able to disprove universal optimality in the cases in Table4 , but they are sufficiently large that our failure provides little evidence in favor of universal optimality. Note that the data presented in Tables 3 and 4 may not specify the configurations uniquely.... ..."

Cited by 2

### Table 8: Best lower bound on maximal determinant of 1-matrix of order k+1; and normalized I-value of conjecturally I-optimal design. k g(k + 1) Notes I=(k + 1)

1993

"... In PAGE 25: ...0000 1.0000 Table 7: Comparison of minimal quadratic designs in cube, based on Table8 of Draper and Lin [32]. Entry gives reciprocal of D-value.... In PAGE 26: ...best designs known, in higher dimensions it does not perform as well as programs such as that of Smith [91] which are designed speci cally for this problem. Table8 shows best lower bounds on g(k + 1) presently known. In this table, indicates that the entry is known to be the exact value of g(k + 1), H indicates a Hadamard matrix, and G that gossetwas able to nd this design.... ..."

Cited by 21

### Table 10. Mean Frequency of Various Types of Collaboration Agreements/Arrangements by Disciplinary Area

2007

"... In PAGE 29: ...**p lt;.001, **p lt;.01, *p lt;.05 a, b, c Significant differences between roles Table10 presents the mean frequencies of various types of collaboration agreements by disciplinary area. A series of independent-samples t-tests were conducted to examine differences in responses by disciplinary area.... ..."