### Table 1. Closed-form solutions for I d ( )

1999

Cited by 14

### TABLE II. ANALYTICAL CLOSED FORM SOLUTION COMPARED WITH SIMULATION RESULTS.

### Table 7.1: Comparison of orbit simulation with closed-form solution without forces.

2003

Cited by 1

### Table 7.2: Comparison of attitude simulation with closed-form solution with time-varying torques.

2003

Cited by 1

### Table 1. Primitives/kernels compatibility chart: ( ) closed-form solution exists, ( ) no closed-form solution, (1) integral yields in- finite value, (elliptic) a solution is expressed via elliptic integrals.

1999

"... In PAGE 4: ... More on practices of modeling with implicit surfaces at PDI may be found in Beier (1990). In order to produce implicit points and line segments, as Table1 demonstrates, all five kernels may be employed. Computational cost analysis is needed to choose the most effective implementation.... In PAGE 5: ... Unfortunately, there is one serious problem that makes polynomial kernels difficult to implement for higher-dimensional primitives. Table1 shows the existence of closed form expressions for the definite integrals that are computed over the whole volume of each primitive. The limited range of influence of the polynomial kernels make the integration domain posi- tion dependent.... ..."

Cited by 11

### Table 3.3: Results for = 0:025 (no closed form solution). Nonstochastic Stochastic

1997

Cited by 1

### Table 1 Comparison of Closed Form Solution and Monte Carlo Simulation with 10,000 instances

"... In PAGE 15: ...9484 -0.0016 Table1 shows a particular comparison. The failure rate for the Astrometic Beam Combiner (ABC) was varied from 0 to ... ..."

### Table 4.1: Address pattern generation times (in microseconds) of (CF - closed form solutions) our approach and the (RT - run-time solutions) Riacs approach for 32 processors on an IBM RS6000

### Table 4.2: No Queueing Closed-Form Solution: Loss Rates vs. Detection Times (D) and Restoration Times (R); N =1 Loss Rate D=50ms D=100ms D=1s

1999