"... In PAGE 3: ... Direct implication have four rules for AND gates, four rules for OR gates, and two rules for INV gates. In Table1 , the #0Crst column shows the rule names and the second column shows the rules. Take Rule A1 in Table 1 as an example.... In PAGE 3: ... In Table 1, the #0Crst column shows the rule names and the second column shows the rules. Take Rule A1 in Table1 as an example. Node n m has two fanins, node n k through wire w i and node n l through wire w j .... In PAGE 4: ... Since the start- ing point of the implication steps is the assignments either on the node driving wire w or on the side inputs of the dominators of wire w,we de#0Cne the recursion basis as C#28n=v#29= 8 #3E #3E #3E #3E #3E #3C #3E #3E #3E #3E #3E : 1 if n is the node driving wire w and is assigned value v p w i if n is a side input connect- ing through wire w i to a dom- inator node of w and n is as- signed value v #286#29 The de#0Cnition of C#28n=v#29 on all other nodes n apos;s with value v assigned depends on where value v is implied from and is recursively de#0Cned. The recursive de#0Cnitions are shown in the third column of Table1 . For convenience, we also call these recursive de#0Cnitions as the back propagation rules.... In PAGE 4: ... For convenience, we also call these recursive de#0Cnitions as the back propagation rules. Take Rule A1 in Table1 as an example. First we note that the implication rule in the second column is a situation for an AND gate where node n m is assigned 0 because node n k was assigned 0.... In PAGE 4: ... ORing these three functions is what wehave in the third column of Rule A2. The rules in the third column of Table1 , together with the recursion basis in Equation 6, completes our de#0Cnition of the constraint function C#28n=v#29 for a given assignment n=v. Note that in our formulation wesayvalues can be assigned on nodes but not on wires.... In PAGE 4: ... Let us focus on wire w 3 . The trace of implication steps for #0Cnding w 3 stuck-at-1 redundant are n 6 = 1 #28side input to n 7 #29 n 1 = 0 #28activating fault#29 =#29 x 1 =0 x 1 =0 =#29 n 3 =0 n 3 =0orn 3 =0 =#29 n 5 =0 n 6 = 1 and n 5 =0 =#29 n 4 =1 n 1 =0 =#29 n 4 = 0 #28con#0Dict!#29 Nowwe apply the back propagation rules of constraint functions shown in the third column of Table1 . Since n 4 is the node where the con#0Dict occurs, we separately back trace C#28n 4 =0#29 and C#28n 4 =1#29.... ..."

"... In PAGE 31: ...4.1 The sharing rule Table3 gives the values of the sharing rule for different sets of characteristics. The benchmark household has a home-owning husband and wife with the same gross income and age and with median total expenditure for Ontario in 1992.... In PAGE 31: ... The benchmark household has a home-owning husband and wife with the same gross income and age and with median total expenditure for Ontario in 1992. Table3 presents the estimates of the level and variations in the sharing rule. At our benchmark value the wife apos;s share is 0:65.... ..."

"... In PAGE 9: ... 3.3 Axiomatization for key implication We now turn to the nite implication problem for K, and start by giving in Table3 a set of inference rules, denoted by I. Most rules are simply a generalization of rules shown in Table 2.... ..."

"... In PAGE 16: ...3. Axiomatization for Key Implication We now turn to the nite implication problem for K, and start by giving in Table3 a set of inference rules, denoted by I. Most rules are generalizations of rules shown in Table 2 except for rules that deal with the context path in the setting of relative keys: context-path-containment, context-target and interaction.... ..."

"... In PAGE 21: ... The appropriate policy choice, therefore, depends on careful empirical analysis done on a case-by-case basis. Table1 provides an overview of policy responses and degrees of consensus on standards. Each policy option is assessed both as to whether and under what circumstances it should be permissible under world trade rules (in roman type), and as to whether it can be warranted on the grounds that it improves welfare in the importing country (in italic type).... In PAGE 22: ... The CBA requirement is important to ensure that labeling is not imposed for protectionist reasons when national welfare would be greater with unrestricted access. Since the susceptibility of standards to capture by purely protectionist interests is a real concern, Table1 emphasizes that a complete CBA should continue to be required to justify labeling. As it stands, the TBT agreement rules out trade barriers based on the processes used in production.... In PAGE 22: ... Thus, a cost-benefit calculation would be essential in such cases and should probably be done at the time a standard is notified to the WTO, rather than at the point where a dispute erupts. As suggested in Table1 , the degree of consensus on standards should probably have a bearing on what trade remedies are and are not permissible in dealing with non-conformity. Certainly, obstructions to trade would be minimized when there is a broad international agreement on standards that is adopted by virtually all parties to the WTO.... In PAGE 23: ... Table1 . In the case where an importing partner elected to resort to such a full embargo, however, its own national welfare would be lower than with superior alternative policies.... In PAGE 23: ... In particular, it would be wise to revamp the trade rules dealing with standards in a way that discourages the setting of unilateral standards that each have the same intent, but which differ in detail and thus confound trade. To this end, it might be wise to continue to rule out the use of tariffs and partial embargoes as well as full embargoes in the case of unilateral standards as suggested by the question marks in the quot;unilateral standard quot; row of Table1 . Since tariffs and even partial embargoes can sometimes be a national-welfare-maximizing response to the breach of labour or environmental standards, these policies could be made permissible under the TBT agreement in cases where there is a sufficient degree of consensus on the standard.... ..."

"... In PAGE 13: ... We therefore start by giving a discussion on the rules for absolute key implication. The set of rules, denoted as Iabs, is shown in Table2 and is subsequently extended as rules for relative key implication. superkey.... In PAGE 16: ....3. Axiomatization for Key Implication We now turn to the nite implication problem for K, and start by giving in Table 3 a set of inference rules, denoted by I. Most rules are generalizations of rules shown in Table2 except for rules that deal with the context path in the setting of relative keys: context-path-containment, context-target and interaction. We brie y illustrate these rules below.... ..."