Soundness. When tested by ’Le-chateleir’ method (IS: 4301,Part 3-1988) and autoclave method (for cement having a moisture content more than 3%), the cement shall not have an expansion of more than 10mm and 0.8 percent respectively.
Soundness. Let a1,..., an be the children of the ADTree gate A with EAMAS models Ma1 ,..., Man , MA respectively. Let the sequence of actions P { } ?ai1 si1 ?ai2 si2 ?aim sim take MA from its initial state l0 to its final state lA, where sj ok, nok . Then the corresponding ordered success or failure of the children ai1 ,..., aim make the ADTree gate A succeed.
Soundness. When the checks described above have been performed, we are guaranteed that the soundness requirements described in Section 4.5 are satisfied since our analyses are conservative. Ulti- mately, this works to ensure that the exceptions thrown by the template operations will never occur. Notice that the two checks of templates and code are independent, which means that the designer and the programmer are free to work on their own, only bound by the limitations of the contract. Our analyses are of course approximative, which means that they may unfairly reject programs for which no exceptions would actually be thrown during runtime. However, expe- riences from the JWIG project [9, 10] indicate that the precision is sufficient for practical use. The analyses are also efficient, handling large programs in mere seconds.
Soundness. Suppose there exists a subset S [2 + 2N + 3m] whose pairwise sum of products is
Soundness. Every non-uniform polynomial-time adversary A wins the following experiment with at most negligible probability (in (n, κ)):
Soundness. In order to be adopted, a Local Development Plan must be determined ‘Sound’ by the Examination Inspector (S.64 of the 2004 Act). Tests of Soundness tests and checks are identified in PPW (ch2) and the Manual (ch8).
Soundness. Given a set of honestly generated verification keys, it is difficult to output a verifying SRDS signature (σms, π) on a message m such that the multi-signature σms does not verify on m against any sufficiently large subset of keys. In order to prove that sufficiently many parties agree on a message m, it suffices to certify that there exists an s-size subset of parties (where s is sufficiently large) who agree on the same message m. Therefore, moving forward for SRDS based on multi-signatures, we only focus on proving that exactly s parties agree on a particular message. We now formalize SRDS based on multi-signatures. ∈
Soundness. In this section we present the soundness of the monitoring mechanism in λCoS, namely the property that in a well-typed program P in which a module p “behaves well”, p cannot be blamed. We proceed according to the following roadmap. First, we introduce the notion of contract entailment to specify when a contract is “more demanding than” another (Section 5.1). Entailment is a natural generalization of subtyping of session types [Gay and Hole 2005]. Using entailment, we formalize the notion of locally correct module p as a module that always honors the contracts of the endpoints it uses. Locality refers to the fact that the correctness of p solely depends on the actions performed by, and on information known to, the module p itself (Section 5.2). Finally, we characterize the soundness of a module p as a set of invariant properties of the (busy) monitors in which the label p occurs. A direct consequence of soundness is that a well-typed, locally correct module p cannot be blamed (Section 5.3).
Soundness. To the best of the Company’s and ORA’s knowledge, the mechanical, electrical, plumbing and sewer systems serving the Improvements are fully operational, there are no structural, electrical, mechanical, plumbing, roof, paving or other defects in the Property, the roofs of the Improvements are free of leaks and in sound structural condition, and the Personalty is in good working order.
Soundness. If the contract is fulfilled by both parties, then some important guarantees can be issued about the dynamic behavior of the service: Neither TemplateExceptions, ReceiveExceptions, nor ShowExceptions can occur. The proof is trivial: a TemplateException occurs if the programmer attempts to use a nonexisting or not wellformed template, but this is made impossible by §1 and §4; a ReceiveException occurs if the programmer tries to receive a nonexisting form field, which is avoided by the combination of §2, §5, and §6; and a Show- Exception occurs if invalid XHTML 1.0 appears at a show statement, but this is avoided by §2, §3, and §5. This shows yet another benefit of the contracts:
