### Table 1. Complete rules for processing GIS terrain data by the modified Butterfly scheme.

### Table 1. Comparison of security models with provable correctness.

"... In PAGE 12: ... Furthermore, the decentralization allows for the provable correctness of randomized mechanisms. Table1 summarizes the pro- posed models for secure mechanism execution. Even though the centralized models provide questionable privacy, there are certainly applications in which they would be favored over the decentralized models due to practical considerations (efficiency, lack... ..."

### Table 1. Comparison of security models with provable correctness.

"... In PAGE 12: ... Furthermore, the decentralization allows for the provable correctness of randomized mechanisms. Table1 summarizes the pro- posed models for secure mechanism execution. Even though the centralized models provide questionable privacy, there are certainly applications in which they would be favored over the decentralized models due to practical considerations (efficiency, lack... ..."

### Table 1. Comparison of security models with provable correctness

"... In PAGE 12: ... Furthermore, the decentralization allows for the provable correctness of randomized mechanisms. Table1 summarizes the pro- posed models for secure mechanism execution. Even though the centralized models provide questionable privacy, there are certainly applications in which they would be favored over the decentralized models due to practical considerations (efficiency, lack of communication between agents, robustness, etc.... ..."

### Table 1. Rules for SRL-provability

2002

"... In PAGE 7: ... 3.3 Proof calculus for programs and set-expressions Table1 shows the Set Reduction Logic that determines the semantics of set- expressions with respect to CIS-programs, by de ning the provability relation S / C between set-expressions S and sets C of partial cterms. When S / C is provable we say that C is a su cient approximation set (SAS) for S.... ..."

Cited by 3

### Table 2. Rules for CRWLF-provability

2000

"... In PAGE 9: .../; lt;= gt;. Table2 contains the CRWLF-calculus. Some of the rules use a generalized notion of c-instances of a rule R: [R]?;F = fR j 2 CSubst?;Fg.... ..."

Cited by 18

### Table 1: Rules for CRW L6 =-provability

"... In PAGE 5: ...g. When C is empty we omit the symbol lt;==. From a given R we want to derive statements of the following kinds: approxima- tion statements of the form e ! t (e 2 T erm?; t 2 CT erm?), intended to mean that t is an approximation to a value resulting of reducing e; equality (or joinability) statements of the form e == e0 (e; e0 2 T erm?), intended to mean that e; e0 are both reducible to a common total c-term t; and disequality (or divergence) statements of the form e 6 = e0 (e; e0 2 T erm?), intended to mean that e; e0 are reducible to inconsistent partial c-terms t; t0. Formal CRW L6 =-provability is governed by the rules of Table1 . They use the set of partial c-instances of R de ned as [R]? f(l = r lt;== C) j (l = r lt;== C) 2 R; 2 CSubst?g.... ..."

### Table 1. Rules for SRL-provability

2001

Cited by 6

### Table 15: Complete summary of events following initial transaction.

"... In PAGE 21: ... Thereafter, since Rc contains no more rules, rule processing terminates. Table15 summarizes this entire process from start to nish. The resulting values of the emp table are shown in Tables 16 and 17.... ..."