2. Consider the set AP = { A, B } of atomic propositions. Formulate the following properties as LT properties and characterize each of them as being either an invariance, safety property, or liveness property, or none of these. (a) A should never occur, (b) A should occur exactly once, (c) A and B alternate infinitely often, (d) A should eventually be followed by B.

2. Consider the set AP = { A, B } of atomic propositions. Formulate the following properties as LT properties and characterize each of them as being either an invariance, safety property, or liveness property, or none of these. (a) A should never occur, (b) A should occur exactly once, (c) A and B alternate infinitely often, (d) A should eventually be followed by B.

Database System Concepts

7th Edition

ISBN:9780078022159

Author:Abraham Silberschatz Professor, Henry F. Korth, S. Sudarshan

Publisher:Abraham Silberschatz Professor, Henry F. Korth, S. Sudarshan

Chapter1: Introduction

Section: Chapter Questions

Problem 1PE

See similar textbooks

Similar questions

Let A = {a, b, c, d} and R = {(a, a), (b, b), (c, c), (d, d)}. Is R reflexive, symmetric, and/or transitive? Explain why or why not for each property.
For the following proposition, describe (i) a model on which it is true, and (ii) a model on which it is false. If there is no model of one of these types, explain why. ∀x(Px→(Rxx∨∃y(Qy∧Rxy)))
Prove or disprove the following property using Armstrong’s Axioms Primary Rules only: If A -> B and {A, C} -> {B,D}, then C -> DIf the property is held, you have to clearly state the rules used. If a property is NOT held, disprove it by giving a counter-example (a set of sample instances).
Consider the wffs:φ1 ≡ p1 → (p2 → (p3 → p4))φ2 ≡ (p1 ∧ p2 ∧ p3) → p4(a) Technically speaking, neither φ1 nor φ2 is well-formed since neither is allowed by the formal syntaxof propositional logic. Correct them. Note, however, that we will freely make such trivial ’errors’ throughout this semester (as do most such courses).(b) Use truth tables (in the form defined in this course) to show that φ1 ↔ φ2.(c) After internalizing an intuitive understanding of this equality, propose an extension of it to n atoms.(d) State the number of rows in a truth table for proving the extension
Consider the wffs:φ1 ≡ p1 → (p2 → (p3 → p4))φ2 ≡ (p1 ∧ p2 ∧ p3) → p4(a) Technically speaking, neither φ1 nor φ2 is well-formed since neither is allowed by the formal syntaxof propositional logic. Correct them. Note, however, that we will freely make such trivial ’errors’throughout this semester (as do most such courses).(b) Use truth tables (in the form defined in this course) to show that φ1 ↔ φ2.(c) After internalizing an intuitive understanding of this equality, propose an extension of it to natoms.(d) State the number of rows in a truth table for proving the extension.
Suppose we augment PC with an exclusive or binary operator, ⊕. Modify the model theoretic semanticsto support ⊕.The main purpose of this problem is to get familiar with the notation, and it will thus be graded srictlyon your use of proper notaiton
Simplify the given proposition using Logical Equivalence rules and determine if it is a tautology, contradiction orcontingency. Do not forget to indicate rule/s applied in each step. 1. ¬(q ⊕ p) → ¬(p ∧ q) 2. (¬p ∧ r) ⊕ (p ∨ q)
6. Consider the heuristics for this problem shown in the table above, h2 is admissible. true or false?
Let P(x) be the statement “x can speak Russian” and let Q(x) be the statement “x knows C++”. Express each of these statements in terms P(x), Q(x), quantifiers and logical connectives. The domain for quantifiers consists of all students at Mines. There is a student at Mines who can speak Russian and who knows C++. Every student at your school either can speak Russian or knows C++.
8. Consider the heuristics for this problem shown in the table above, h2 is monotone. true or false?
5. Consider the heuristics for this problem shown in the table above, h1 is admissible.
2. With reference to the following logical equivalences, determine whether each of them is valid orinvalid. If it is invalid then give a counterexample (e.g. based on a Truth-Value assignment).If it is valid then give an algebraic proof using ONLY logical equivalences from Table 6 inSection 1.3 of course textbook, and the rule for conditional: p → q ≡ ¬p ∨ q.(a) p → (q → r) ≡ (p → q) → r(b) (p → r) ∨ (q → r) ≡ (p ∧ q) → r(c) (¬p → (q ∧ ¬q)) ≡ p(d) p ∧ q → r ≡ (¬p ∧ ¬q) → ¬r