sfrank

13 ms·

1.
by sfrank 5y ago
So, like Delaware?
2.
by sfrank 6y ago
Like iterate ( https://common-lisp.net/project/iterate/ )
3.
by sfrank 8y ago
For automotive software the ISO 26262 is the equivalent to RTCA DO-178 in avionics. ISO 26262 highly recommends that ASIL C and D-classified systems utilize semiformal and formal verification among other techniques to verify software unit d
4.
by sfrank 8y ago
That is because the formal method supplement of the DO-178C is RTCA DO-333. There you have about a hundred pages concerned with the application of formal methods.
5.
by sfrank 8y ago
And what the OPAL functional language [1] did since the mid 80s. Though the concept there is expanded from simple reference counting by additional static analysis during compile time (making use of the functional semantics of the language)
6.
by sfrank 9y ago
No, a domain-consistent all-different propagator such as the one desccribed in [1] is sufficient to determine a valuation domain for a Sudoku puzzle without any search. Of course that does not hold in general, but in the special case of Sud
7.
by sfrank 10y ago
Yes, but even better there is the global constraint geost [1] which is specifically for this purpose in k-dimensions; see also [2] for a more detailed presentation. Unfortunately, Gecode does not provide it (and you would have to express it
8.
by sfrank 11y ago
The DO-178B/C explicitly does not specify how verification is done but describes the properties that are expected of the verification evidences that you submit to the certification authorities; so formal verification is perfectly fine
9.
by sfrank 13y ago
Sure you can do however, since Ruby allows destructive updates, why not use one of the established/traditional imperative data structures and then apply techniques to make them "persistent" (i.e. immutable in the functional programming sen
10.
by sfrank 14y ago
Well, not my area, but a little googling brought up this: http://www.inf.ethz.ch/personal/cellier/MS/andres_ms.pdf (well, there goes my evening). I don't know, but I find the decomposition quite intuitive.
11.
by sfrank 14y ago
Well, since both are implementations of the Modelica standard I would guess they are pretty much the same, though I do not know MapleSim or your problems with it.
12.
by sfrank 14y ago
This is simply a different view to model systems such as can be done in Simulink. Simulink has a (differential) equation-centric view whereas Modelica (of which SystemModeller is an implementation using the mathematical capabilities of Math