C RUBY-ON-RAILS MYSQL ASP.NET DEVELOPMENT RUBY .NET LINUX SQL-SERVER REGEX WINDOWS ALGORITHM ECLIPSE VISUAL-STUDIO STRING SVN PERFORMANCE APACHE-FLEX UNIT-TESTING SECURITY LINQ UNIX MATH EMAIL OOP LANGUAGE-AGNOSTIC VB6 MSBUILD

# Modelling a logic puzzle

By : David Wu
Date : October 21 2020, 08:10 PM
To fix the issue you can do I think there's an implicit assumption that flowers of all three colors are represented in the garden. With that in mind, here's how I'd go about coding it using both Python and Haskell interfaces to Z3; because it's just easier to code in those languages than directly in SMTLib.
Python
code :
``````from z3 import *

# Color enumeration
Color, (R, Y, B) = EnumSort('Color', ('R', 'Y', 'B'))

# An uninterpreted function for color assignment
col = Function('col', IntSort(), Color)

# Number of flowers
N = Int('N')

# Helper function to specify distinct valid choices:
def validPick (i1, i2, i3):
return And( Distinct(i1, i2, i3)
, 1 <= i1, 1 <= i2, 1 <= i3
, i1 <= N, i2 <= N, i3 <= N
)

# Helper function to count a given color
def count(pickedColor, flowers):
return Sum([If(col(f) == pickedColor, 1, 0) for f in flowers])

# Get a solver and variables for our assertions:
s = Solver()
f1, f2, f3 = Ints('f1 f2 f3')

# There's at least one flower of each color
s.add(Exists([f1, f2, f3], And(validPick(f1, f2, f3), col(f1) == R, col(f2) == Y, col(f3) == B)))

# You pick three, and at least one of them is red
s.add(ForAll([f1, f2, f3], Implies(validPick(f1, f2, f3), count(R, [f1, f2, f3]) >= 1)))

# You pick three, and at least one of them is yellow
s.add(ForAll([f1, f2, f3], Implies(validPick(f1, f2, f3), count(Y, [f1, f2, f3]) >= 1)))

# For every three flowers you pick, one of them has to be blue
s.add(ForAll([f1, f2, f3], Implies(validPick(f1, f2, f3), count(B, [f1, f2, f3]) == 1)))

# Find a satisfying value of N
print s.check()
print s.model()[N]

# See if there's any other value by outlawing the choice
nVal = s.model()[N]
s.add(N != nVal)
print s.check()
``````
``````sat
3
unsat
``````
``````print s.sexpr()
``````

Share :

## Modelling a shared entity puzzle

By : amit
Date : March 29 2020, 07:55 AM
wish helps you Depends a little on the purpose of the Context table. Can you have a context that is created be shared among the User, Task, or Projects? If so then a Many-to-Many relationship table may help out for each of the different joins. So a UserContext, ProjectContext, TaskContext table. They would just house the primary keys of the two tables and maybe a timestamp, up to you.
If you do not share any of the content with the other tables such that each link is unique to the person creating it you may want to just add a context type to the mix. So a ContextType table would be added to the mix. You would still want a relationship table such that a person could have multiple contexts, etc. So then then you could have a ContextRelationshipTable that links the foreign key from the parent table to the context table and you could use the type as a filter.

## Modelling Business Logic with NON-Techies

By : user1894819
Date : March 29 2020, 07:55 AM
This might help you The problem is that the customer can always come up with some completely left-field ideas. "Oh, If the customer orders a Class A product on Tuesday, and it happens to be their birthday, give them a 50% discount and a free Class B product. And notify the Chairman to give them a phone call."
You CAN'T program for all eventualities. If you do plan to build a super-duper rules engine for business logic, it should be because your system is going to be widely deployed and needs to be customized by the customers. Not because your customers don't know what they want - in that case you'd be building a system to anticipate customer requirements, not a system to order products (or whatever it's main purpose is).

## Modelling Constraint Logic Programs (for analysis)

By : Cqing
Date : March 29 2020, 07:55 AM
should help you out The two approaches that I have seen used the most are abstract interpretation and evolving algbras (aka Abstract State Machines). Egon Boerger published a formal definition of Prolog and a correctnes proof of the Warren Abstract Machine using evolving algebras. Pure logic programming languages can just be modelled directly in logic.

## Modelling recipes and available ingredients with constraint logic

By : Thoft
Date : March 29 2020, 07:55 AM
I wish this helpful for you Imagine I have a number of recipes for different dishes and a larder containing various ingredients in my kitchen. I want to construct a model using core.logic which will enable me to answer the following question: for a given set of ingredients (i.e. those in my larder now) which recipes can I make? , Here's one way to model this problem:
code :
``````(db-rel in-larder i)
(db-rel recipe r)
(db-rel in-recipe r i)
(db-rel compound-ingredient i is)

(def recipes (db
[compound-ingredient :carrots-or-peas [:or :carrots :peas]]
[compound-ingredient :onions-or-garlic [:or :onions :garlic]]
[compound-ingredient :carrots-and-onions [:and :carrots :onions]]
[compound-ingredient :rice-and-peas [:and :rice :peas]]
[compound-ingredient :carrots-onions-or-rice-peas [:or :carrots-and-onions :rice-and-peas]]
[recipe :risotto-a]
[recipe :risotto-b]
[in-recipe :risotto-a [:carrots-or-peas :rice :onions-or-garlic]]
[in-recipe :risotto-b [:garlic :carrots-onions-or-rice-peas]]))

(defn possible-recipe [r]
(recipe r)
(fresh [ingredients]
(in-recipe r ingredients)
(all-ingredients-in-lardero ingredients)))
``````
``````(defne any-ingredient-in-lardero [ingredients]
([[?i . ?morei]] (conda [(ingredient-in-lardero ?i)]
[(emptyo ?morei) fail]
[(any-ingredient-in-lardero ?morei)])))

(defne all-ingredients-in-lardero [ingredients]
([[?i . ?morei]]
(ingredient-in-lardero ?i)
(conda [(emptyo ?morei)]
[(all-ingredients-in-lardero ?morei)])))

(defn ingredient-in-lardero [i]
(conde
[(fresh [composition op sub-ingredients]
(compound-ingredient i composition)
(conso op sub-ingredients composition)

(conde
[(== :or op) (any-ingredient-in-lardero sub-ingredients)]
[(== :and op) (all-ingredients-in-lardero sub-ingredients)]))]
[(in-larder i)]))
``````
``````(def larder-1 (db [in-larder :carrots] [in-larder :rice] [in-larder :garlic]))
(def larder-2 (db [in-larder :peas]    [in-larder :rice] [in-larder :garlic]))

(with-dbs [recipes larder-1]
(run* [q]
(possible-recipe q)))
;=> (:risotto-a)

(with-dbs [recipes larder-2]
(run* [q]
(possible-recipe q)))
;=> (:risotto-a :risotto-b)
``````

## Modelling logic

By : suny sinha
Date : March 29 2020, 07:55 AM
To fix this issue UML Activity Diagrams might not be what you are looking for. They are usually used to model activities in a process. They tend to be more high-level and conceptual and less about the implementation.
From your question it reads as if you are working on the implementation itself. In that case I would urge you to look at UML State Diagrams. They are really neat when you want to think about different states your application (or components of your application) can be in. It also lets you logically decompose behaviour into states.
 Privacy Policy - Terms - Contact Us © voile276.org