### Table 6. Conjecture Results

"... In PAGE 12: ...supports C6.2, but not C5.2). Our findings are summarized in Table6 . The basic question was: Does the mod- ule type drive the fault type? Six conjectured fault links were supported, at least weakly.... ..."

### Table 1. It is natural to conjecture that

1993

"... In PAGE 13: .... See also Remark 4.3. We conclude this discussion of experimental nd- ings with some speculative curve- tting. By study- ing trajectories of band tests such as those shown in Figure 6 for systems with larger ranges, we have extended Table1 to all 40. Evaluation of the exact cuto becomes increasingly delicate as in- creases, so there may well be some small errors in our numerical results.... ..."

Cited by 2

### Table 5. Example verification conjectures

1998

"... In PAGE 8: ... For each item, we provide the definition of the system, together with the definition of its subcomponents. Table5 shows some of the conjectures used in the test set. Considering the whole test set, which includes more than 30 conjectures, the success rate of Clam was 86%, with an average total elapsed planning time of 226 seconds, and standard deviation of 192.... ..."

Cited by 1

### Table 1. Conjectures proved by reuse

"... In PAGE 5: ... Apart from initial proofs provided by the hu- man advisor in the \prove quot; step, none of these steps necessitates human support. Thus the proof shell from Figure 3 can be automatically reused for proving the step formulas apos;s i of the apparently di erent conjectures apos;i given in Table1 below. This table illustrates a typical session with the Plagiator-system: At the beginning of the ses- sion the human advisor submits statement apos; (in the rst row) and a proof p of apos; to the system.... ..."

### Tables Search and prediction of patterns Conjectures formulation Use of school knowledge Conjectures validation Conjectures generalization Characterization of even numbers

### Table 1: Summary of Parameters (y { conjecture)

2007

"... In PAGE 7: ...4 The code C4 q in C4 has minimum distance d = 2q. Table1 summarizes our theoretical results. Many of the expressions for minimum distance are proven, but some of the dimensions are conjectured.... ..."

### Table 3. Conjectures and helpful lemmata about +; ; exp

1996

"... In PAGE 13: ... The following table presents a collection of conjec- tures C and lemmata C0 which are speculated when proving C by induction. Column (a) in Table3 denotes the set of maximal symbols of conjecture C (which is a singleton for all examples here as exp gt;def gt;def +), (b) is the number of occurrences of the maximal symbol in C, (c) is the set of maximal symbols on recursive arguments, \Lemmata C0 quot; are the speculated lemmata, and column gt;F shows by which criterion of De nition 3 the conjecture-lemma pairs are related. For instance, conjecture C6 := (x+y)+(u+v) (x+u)+(y+v) from Table 3 can be proved by using either C4 or C3 and C5 as lemmata, and we have C6 gt;F C4 and C6 gt;F C3 as well as C6 gt;F C5.... In PAGE 13: ... Column (a) in Table 3 denotes the set of maximal symbols of conjecture C (which is a singleton for all examples here as exp gt;def gt;def +), (b) is the number of occurrences of the maximal symbol in C, (c) is the set of maximal symbols on recursive arguments, \Lemmata C0 quot; are the speculated lemmata, and column gt;F shows by which criterion of De nition 3 the conjecture-lemma pairs are related. For instance, conjecture C6 := (x+y)+(u+v) (x+u)+(y+v) from Table3 can be proved by using either C4 or C3 and C5 as lemmata, and we have C6 gt;F C4 and C6 gt;F C3 as well as C6 gt;F C5.12... In PAGE 13: ... The theorems T1; T3 ? T7; T12 ? T14; T16; T18; T20; T21; T23; T25 ? T50 are gt;F -larger than the lemmata speculated for them due to criterion (a) of gt;F .13 12 Table3 shows the lemmata for proving base and step cases of C, whereas Table 1 contains only the lemmata speculated for proving a step case of apos;i by reuse. 13 Theorems T36 ?T47 do not use lemmata at all.... ..."

Cited by 3