### Table 1: Declaration of states and global variables. Proof:

1999

"... In PAGE 20: ...( 2 (dP1e _ d e) ^ dP2e) ; ( 2 (dP1e _ d e) ^ dP3e) ) fAlways-Once-Somewhereg ((dP1e _ d e) ^ dP2e) ; ((dP1e _ d e) ^ dP3e) ) fPLg ((dP1e ^ dP2e) _ (d e ^ dP2e)) ; ((dP1e ^ dP3e) _ (d e ^ dP3e)) ) fDefn, analysisg ((dP1e ^ dP2e) _ false) ; ((dP1e ^ dP3e) _ false) ) fPLg (dP1e ^ dP2e) ; (dP1e ^ dP3e) 2 4.2 EDC model of the landing gear Table1 gives the declaration of the constituents in the coarse plant model of the landing gear. Using the above notation and the architectural breakdown in Figure 10, the closed loop system for the landing gear is represented by S P ^ C... ..."

Cited by 3

### Table 1. Declaration of Constants.

2002

"... In PAGE 11: ... We will proceed with a short description of each automaton. The de nition of these uses a number of constants that are declared in Table1 in Appendix 8. The Senders.... ..."

Cited by 4

### Table 1. Declaration of Constants.

2002

"... In PAGE 11: ... We will proceed with a short description of each automaton. The de nition of these uses a number of constants that are declared in Table1 in Appendix 8. The Senders.... ..."

Cited by 4

### Table 2. Syntactic variations for Proof with equivalent primitive forms.

1999

"... In PAGE 7: ... Syntactically, the locals declaration for each enrichment can be omitted, as new symbols are assumed to be new local constants. The construct is very general, and some highly useful variants are translated to it as shown in Table2 , including assertion, abbreviation, and the linear forms of enrichment seen above. These forms assume the automated prover can, as a minimum, decide the trivial forms of rst order equational problems that arise as proof obligations in the translations.... ..."

Cited by 7

### Table 2. Syntactic variations for Proof with equivalent primitive forms.

1999

"... In PAGE 7: ...Syntactically,thelocals declaration for each enrichment can be omitted, as new symbols are assumed to be new local constants. The construct is very general, and some highly useful variants are translated to it as shown in Table2 , including assertion, abbreviation, and the linear forms of enrichmentseenabove. These forms assume the automated prover can, as a minimum, decide the trivial forms of rst order equational problems that arise as proof obligations in the translations.... ..."

Cited by 7

### Table 1: Translation table for scheme proof

2003

"... In PAGE 18: ... The user enters a program at the first-order level. A translation table created by the system, shown for this example in Table1 , can be used to interpret terms. The... ..."

Cited by 7

### Table 1: Declarative interpretation

"... In PAGE 24: ... By assigning to this formula its semantic meaning that agrees with the operational semantics of the original program we obtain declarative semantics of the program under consideration. Consider now Table1 , in which we denote by T (S) the translation of the program S and where B denotes a primary boolean expression. Several remarks are in order.... In PAGE 27: ... The following formula constitutes its declarative interpretation: (x) 8column 2 [1::N] 9row 2 [1::N] 8i 2 [1::column ? 1] (x[i] 6 = row ^ x[i] 6 = row + column ? i ^ x[i] 6 = row + i ? column ^ x[column] = row): In turn, consider the following program FORALLqueens(x); x[1] gt; 4 DOEITHER x[2] lt; 4 ORELSE x[3] lt; 4 END END that tests whether for all solutions x to the Eight Queens problem such that x[1] gt; 4 also x[2] lt; 4 or x[3] lt; 4 holds. Its declarative interpretation consists of the following formula: 8x(( (x) ^ x[1] gt; 4) ! (x[2] lt; 4 _ x[3] lt; 4)): The right hand side of Table1 determines a logical language that could be used to specify programs. By using this table we could translate a speci cation written in this language into a program that meets this speci cation.... ..."

### Table 1: Declaration of general functions and procedures.

"... In PAGE 4: ... Table1 de nes a set of functions and procedures which will be largely used by the main algorithms on 2-3 trees. We only give here a short description of their e ect: Function Height returns the height of a 2-3 tree.... ..."

### Table 5. Fragment of the Proof System

2006

"... In PAGE 36: ...A Fragment of the Proof System from Earlier Papers A representative fragment of the axioms and inference rules in the proof system are collected in Table5 . For expositional convenience, we divide the axioms into three groups.... ..."

Cited by 2