Computation rules

The following computation rules are advocated to make sure that a calculated result, arrived at either by addition and subtraction or multiplication and division essentially contains only the number of digits duly justified by the experimental data. 

Note that, Z(z) e IV. We call 7( ) the coefficient afv in z. Since ui,..., U2 is a basis, 7(2) is well defined as a function of z. Notice that each of the computation rules defining our equivalence relation leaves the coefficient of vi unchanged for example, we have a(u, w) iav, w), and while making this substitution changes the computation of the Cj s and bj s, it leaves the products Cjbj unchanged. The reader should check the other computation rules. Thus if zi 22, the coefficient of ui in "i must equal the coefficient of Ui in Z2. Similarly, we can define the coefficient of Vi in z for any i from 1... 

Exercise 2.33 Think of a set of computation rules you have used in some... 

For these computational rules to be valid, all the differential quotients appearing on the left and right sides must make sense. This means that the quantities in the numerator must really be differentiable functions of the variables appearing in the denominator and index. 

Safety analysis uses logic structure representative of possible incidents. Such work methods as fault tree, incident analysis, and decision table are suitable for this purpose. Computation rules for determination of expected frequency of incidents must be formulated accordingly. In a broad sense all mathematical simulation methods which are suited for determination of stress states in technical installations and their parts become aids in safety analysis. These will be described in partial detail later. Here characteristic work methods which are of direct significance with respect to system-related and prognostic consideration of safety analysis will be discussed first,... 

Figure 4.3 shows these relations for two initial incidents A and B from an incident quantity M. The incident linkages correspond to computation rules for the assigned probabilities. 

SLD resolution is parameterized on a computation rule and a search rule [Lloyd 87]. For extended execution, these rules are, for the purpose of the Proofs-as-Programs Method, instantiated as follows ... 

There is independence of the computation rules. But a fairness condition requires that no atom be indefinitely ignored by NFL The completeness proof of extended execution [Kanamori 86] states that every logical consequence is provable by a so-called normalized derivation, in which a sequence of NFI inferences precedes a sequence of DCI inferences, which in turn precedes a sequence of Sim inferences. Hence the idea of a priority ordering between the inference rules, namely NFf > DCI > Sim. 

As it has been written before, it is possible through model and thanks to Fault-Tree pattern to access to the probability of total failure state of a resource and in opposition to get the probability of its complete functioning state. Because goal of this paper is to present assessment method, it is used arbitrary probability values for each resource state, instead of probability coming from Fault-Tree Assessment and questionnaire. The computation rules are extracted again from Multi-State System theory. 

---