### Table 1: Representation of ZC formulae in HOL

2001

"... In PAGE 7: ...ollows from the membership of type string in this class, see Section 1.4. Since type term is simply an instantiation of datatype dbterm, the technical frame- work of Section 1 applies. The syntactic representation of ZC logical constants on top of type term is straightforward, see Table1 . In fact, there is nothing speci c to ZC about these constants - they are simply a minimal set of constants for rst-order predicate logic.... ..."

Cited by 1

### Table 1: The predictability of simple subclasses of CFGs with membership queries (MQ) and nonterminal membership queries (NMQ). Here, crypt. means not to be polynomial- time predictable under the cryptographic assumptions and DNF not to be polynomial- time predictable if DNF formulas are not polynomial-time predictable with membership queries.

### Table 2. Typical term-weighting formulas

1988

Cited by 925

### Table 1: Evaluation of EUF Formulas and Terms

1999

"... In PAGE 8: ...Table 1: Evaluation of EUF Formulas and Terms E under I, denoted I[E], according to its syntactic structure. The valuation is defined recursively, as shown in Table1 . I[E] will be an element of the domain when E is a term, and a truth value when E is a formula.... ..."

Cited by 73

### Table 1: Local Term Weight Formulas

1998

"... In PAGE 5: ... This need not be the same as the weighting for the documents. Here qi = gi ^ ti; where gi is computed based on the frequencies of terms in the document collec- tion, and ^ ti is computed using the same formulas as for tij given in Table1 with fij replaced by ^ fi, the frequency of term i in the query. Normalizing the query vector has no e ect on the document rankings, so we never do it.... ..."

Cited by 60

### Table 4: List of DNF representations No: DNF

1998

Cited by 3

### Table 4: List of DNF representations No: DNF

1998

Cited by 3

### Table 1: Evaluation of EUF Formulas and Terms

2008

"... In PAGE 6: ...ariables, the interpretation assigns an element of D (resp., {true, false}.) Given an interpretation I of the function and predicate symbols and an expression E, we can define the valuation of E under I, denoted I[E], according to its syntactic structure. The valuation is defined recursively, as shown in Table1 . I[E] will be an element of the domain when E is a term, and a truth value when E is a formula.... ..."