4 research outputs found
A direct method for calculating cell cycles of a block map of a simple planar graph
ΠΡΠ΅Π΄Π»Π°Π³Π°Π΅ΠΌΡΠΉ Π°Π»Π³ΠΎΡΠΈΡΠΌ Π²ΡΡΠΈΡΠ»Π΅Π½ΠΈΡ ΡΠΈΠΊΠ»ΠΎΠ² ΡΡΠ΅Π΅ΠΊ ΠΊΠ°ΡΡΡ Π±Π»ΠΎΠΊΠ° Π³ΡΠ°ΡΠ° ΠΏΡΠΎΡΡΠΎΠ³ΠΎ ΠΏΠ»Π°Π½Π°ΡΠ½ΠΎΠ³ΠΎ ΡΠ²Π»ΡΠ΅ΡΡΡ ΡΠ°ΡΡΠΈΡΠ΅Π½ΠΈΠ΅ΠΌ ΠΊΠ»Π°ΡΡΠΈΡΠ΅ΡΠΊΠΎΠ³ΠΎ Π°Π»Π³ΠΎΡΠΈΡΠΌΠ° ΠΏΠΎΠΈΡΠΊΠ° Π² Π³Π»ΡΠ±ΠΈΠ½Ρ ΡΠΈΠΊΠ»ΠΎΠ² DFS-Π±Π°Π·ΠΈΡΠ°. ΠΠ»ΡΡΠ΅Π²ΠΎΠΉ ΠΈΠ΄Π΅Π΅ΠΉ ΠΌΠΎΠ΄ΠΈΡΠΈΠΊΠ°ΡΠΈΠΈ Π°Π»Π³ΠΎΡΠΈΡΠΌΠ° ΡΠ²Π»ΡΠ΅ΡΡΡ ΡΡΡΠ°ΡΠ΅Π³ΠΈΡ ΠΏΡΠ°Π²ΠΎΠ³ΠΎ ΠΎΠ±Ρ
ΠΎΠ΄Π° ΠΏΡΠΈ ΠΏΡΠΎΡ
ΠΎΠΆΠ΄Π΅Π½ΠΈΠΈ Π³ΡΠ°ΡΠ° Π² Π³Π»ΡΠ±ΠΈΠ½Ρ. ΠΠ°ΡΠ°Π»ΡΠ½ΠΎΠΉ Π²Π΅ΡΡΠΈΠ½ΠΎΠΉ ΠΏΡΠΈ ΠΏΡΠ°Π²ΠΎΠΌ ΠΎΠ±Ρ
ΠΎΠ΄Π΅ Π½Π°Π·Π½Π°ΡΠ°Π΅ΡΡΡ Π²Π΅ΡΡΠΈΠ½Π° Ρ ΠΌΠΈΠ½ΠΈΠΌΠ°Π»ΡΠ½ΠΎΠΉ ΠΊΠΎΠΎΡΠ΄ΠΈΠ½Π°ΡΠΎΠΉ ΠΏΠΎ ΠΎΡΠΈ OY. ΠΡΡ
ΠΎΠ΄ ΠΈΠ· Π½Π°ΡΠ°Π»ΡΠ½ΠΎΠΉ Π²Π΅ΡΡΠΈΠ½Ρ Π²ΡΠΏΠΎΠ»Π½ΡΠ΅ΡΡΡ ΠΏΠΎ ΡΠ΅Π±ΡΡ Ρ ΠΌΠΈΠ½ΠΈΠΌΠ°Π»ΡΠ½ΡΠΌ ΠΏΠΎΠ»ΡΡΠ½ΡΠΌ ΡΠ³Π»ΠΎΠΌ. ΠΡΠΎΠ΄ΠΎΠ»ΠΆΠ΅Π½ΠΈΠ΅ ΠΎΠ±Ρ
ΠΎΠ΄Π° ΠΈΠ· ΠΊΠ°ΠΆΠ΄ΠΎΠΉ ΡΠ»Π΅Π΄ΡΡΡΠ΅ΠΉ Π²Π΅ΡΡΠΈΠ½Ρ ΠΎΡΡΡΠ΅ΡΡΠ²Π»ΡΠ΅ΡΡΡ ΠΏΠΎ ΡΠ΅Π±ΡΡ Ρ ΠΌΠΈΠ½ΠΈΠΌΠ°Π»ΡΠ½ΡΠΌ ΠΏΠΎΠ»ΡΡΠ½ΡΠΌ ΡΠ³Π»ΠΎΠΌ ΠΎΡΠ½ΠΎΡΠΈΡΠ΅Π»ΡΠ½ΠΎ ΡΠ΅Π±ΡΠ°, ΠΏΠΎ ΠΊΠΎΡΠΎΡΠΎΠΌΡ ΠΏΡΠΈΡΠ»ΠΈ Π² ΡΠ΅ΠΊΡΡΡΡ Π²Π΅ΡΡΠΈΠ½Ρ. ΠΠ²ΠΎΠ΄ΠΈΡΡΡ Π΄Π²ΡΡ
ΡΡΠΎΠ²Π½Π΅Π²Π°Ρ ΡΡΡΡΠΊΡΡΡΠ° Π²Π»ΠΎΠΆΠ΅Π½Π½ΠΎΡΡΠΈ ΡΠΈΠΊΠ»ΠΎΠ² β ΠΎΡΠ½ΠΎΠ²Π½ΠΎΠΉ ΠΈ Π½ΡΠ»Π΅Π²ΠΎΠΉ ΡΡΠΎΠ²Π½ΠΈ Π²Π»ΠΎΠΆΠ΅Π½Π½ΠΎΡΡΠΈ. ΠΡΠ΅ ΡΠΈΠΊΠ»Ρ Π±Π°Π·ΠΈΡΠ° ΠΎΡΠ½ΠΎΡΡΡΡΡ ΠΊ ΠΎΡΠ½ΠΎΠ²Π½ΠΎΠΌΡ ΡΡΠΎΠ²Π½Ρ. ΠΠ°ΠΆΠ΄ΡΠΉ ΠΈΠ· ΡΠΈΠΊΠ»ΠΎΠ² ΠΌΠΎΠΆΠ΅Ρ ΠΈΠΌΠ΅ΡΡ ΠΈ Π½ΡΠ»Π΅Π²ΠΎΠΉ ΡΡΠΎΠ²Π΅Π½Ρ Π²Π»ΠΎΠΆΠ΅Π½Π½ΠΎΡΡΠΈ Π² Π΄ΡΡΠ³ΠΎΠΌ ΠΎΡΠ½ΠΎΠ²Π½ΠΎΠΌ Π΄Π»Ρ Π½Π΅Π³ΠΎ ΡΠΈΠΊΠ»Π΅, Π΅ΡΠ»ΠΈ ΠΎΠ½ Π²Π»ΠΎΠΆΠ΅Π½ Π² Π½Π΅Π³ΠΎ ΠΈ Π½Π΅ Π²Π»ΠΎΠΆΠ΅Π½ Π½ΠΈ Π² ΠΊΠ°ΠΊΠΎΠΉ Π΄ΡΡΠ³ΠΎΠΉ ΡΠΈΠΊΠ» ΠΈΠ· ΠΎΡΠ½ΠΎΠ²Π½ΠΎΠ³ΠΎ ΡΠΈΠΊΠ»Π°. ΠΡΠΈ ΠΏΡΠ°Π²ΠΎΠΌ ΠΎΠ±Ρ
ΠΎΠ΄Π΅ ΡΠΈΠΊΠ»Ρ Π½ΡΠ»Π΅Π²ΠΎΠΉ Π²Π»ΠΎΠΆΠ΅Π½Π½ΠΎΡΡΠΈ ΡΠ²Π»ΡΡΡΡΡ ΡΠΌΠ΅ΠΆΠ½ΡΠΌΠΈ ΠΎΡΠ½ΠΎΠ²Π½ΠΎΠΌΡ ΡΠΈΠΊΠ»Ρ ΠΈ Π½Π΅ ΠΈΠΌΠ΅ΡΡ ΠΌΠ΅ΠΆΠ΄Ρ ΡΠΎΠ±ΠΎΠΉ ΠΎΠ±ΡΠΈΡ
Π²Π΅ΡΡΠΈΠ½ Π²Π½Π΅ ΠΎΡΠ½ΠΎΠ²Π½ΠΎΠ³ΠΎ ΡΠΈΠΊΠ»Π°. Π£ΠΊΠ°Π·Π°Π½Π½ΡΠ΅ Π΄Π²Π° ΡΠ²ΠΎΠΉΡΡΠ²Π° ΠΏΠΎΠ·Π²ΠΎΠ»ΠΈΠ»ΠΈ Π² ΠΊΠ°ΠΆΠ΄ΠΎΠΌ ΡΠΈΠΊΠ»Π΅ Π±Π°Π·ΠΈΡΠ° ΠΏΠΎΡΠ»Π΅Π΄ΠΎΠ²Π°ΡΠ΅Π»ΡΠ½ΠΎ Π²ΡΠ΄Π΅Π»ΠΈΡΡ ΠΈ ΠΈΡΠΊΠ»ΡΡΠΈΡΡ ΠΈΠ· Π½Π΅Π³ΠΎ Π²ΡΠ΅ ΡΠΈΠΊΠ»Ρ Π½ΡΠ»Π΅Π²ΠΎΠΉ Π²Π»ΠΎΠΆΠ΅Π½Π½ΠΎΡΡΠΈ, ΠΏΡΠΈΠΌΠ΅Π½ΡΡ ΠΎΠΏΠ΅ΡΠ°ΡΠΈΡ ΡΠΈΠΌΠΌΠ΅ΡΡΠΈΡΠ΅ΡΠΊΠΎΠΉ ΡΠ°Π·Π½ΠΎΡΡΠΈ. ΠΠΎΠΊΠ°Π·Π°Π½ΠΎ, ΡΡΠΎ ΠΎΡΡΠ°Π²ΡΠ°ΡΡΡ ΡΠ°ΡΡΡ Π±Π°Π·ΠΈΡΠ½ΠΎΠ³ΠΎ ΡΠΈΠΊΠ»Π° ΡΠ²Π»ΡΠ΅ΡΡΡ ΡΠΈΠΊΠ»ΠΎΠΌ ΡΡΠ΅ΠΉΠΊΠΈ ΠΊΠ°ΡΡΡ Π±Π»ΠΎΠΊΠ°. Π‘Π»ΠΎΠΆΠ½ΠΎΡΡΡ ΠΊΠ°ΠΆΠ΄ΠΎΠ³ΠΎ ΡΠ°Π³Π° Π°Π»Π³ΠΎΡΠΈΡΠΌΠ° Π½Π΅ ΠΏΡΠ΅Π²ΡΡΠ°Π΅Ρ ΠΊΠ²Π°Π΄ΡΠ°ΡΠΈΡΠ½ΠΎΠΉ ΠΎΡΠ½ΠΎΡΠΈΡΠ΅Π»ΡΠ½ΠΎ ΡΠΈΡΠ»Π° Π²Π΅ΡΡΠΈΠ½ ΠΏΠ»Π°Π½Π°ΡΠ½ΠΎΠ³ΠΎ Π³ΡΠ°ΡΠ°
An extensive English language bibliography on graph theory and its applications, supplement 1
Graph theory and its applications - bibliography, supplement
A Formal Approach to Prove Compatibility in Transformation Networks
The increasing complexity of software and cyberphysical systems is handled by dividing the description of the system under construction into different models or views, each with an appropriate abstraction for the needs of specific roles. Since all such models describe the same system, they usually share an overlap of information, which can lead to inconsistencies if overlapping information is not modified uniformly in all models. A well-researched approach to make these overlaps explicit and resolve inconsistencies are incremental, bidirectional model transformations. They specify the constraints between two metamodels and the restoration of consistency between their instances. Relating more than two metamodels can be achieved by combining bidirectional transformations to a network. However, such a network may contain cycles of transformations, whose consistency constraints can be contradictory if they are not aligned with each other and thus cannot be fulfilled at the same time. Such transformations are considered incompatible.
In this article, we provide a formal definition of consistency and compatibility of transformations and propose an inductive approach to prove compatibility of a given network of transformations. We prove correctness of the approach based on these formal definitions. Furthermore, we present an operationalization of the approach at the example of QVT-R. It detects contradictions between relations by transforming them into first-order logic formulae and evaluating them with an SMT solver. The approach operates conservatively, i.e., it is not able to prove compatibility in all cases, but it identifies transformations as compatible only if they actually are. We applied the approach to different evaluation networks and found that it operates conservatively and is able to properly prove compatibility in 80% of the cases, indicating its practical applicability. Its limitations especially arise from restricted capabilities of the used SMT solver, but not from conceptual shortcomings. Our approach enables multiple domain experts to define transformations independently and to check their compatibility when combining them to a network, relieving them from the necessity to align the transformations with each other a priori and to ensure compatibility manuall
On optimal and near-optimal algorithms for some computational graph problems
PhD ThesisSome computational graph problems are considered in this thesis
and algorithms for solving these problems are described in detail. The
problems can be divided into three main classes, namely, problems
involving partially ordered sets, finding cycles in graphs, and
shortest path problems. Most of the algorithms are based on recursive
procedures using depth-first search. The efficiency of each algorithm
is derived and it can be concluded that the majority of the proposed
algorithms are either optimal and near-optimal within a constant factor.
The efficiency of the algorithms is measured by the time and space
requirements for their implementation.Conselho Nacional de Pesquisas,Brazil:
Universidade Federal do Rio de Janeiro, Brazil