Kirjojen hintavertailu. Mukana 12 390 323 kirjaa ja 12 kauppaa.

Kirjahaku

Etsi kirjoja tekijän nimen, kirjan nimen tai ISBN:n perusteella.

1000 tulosta hakusanalla Z D Boxall

Z. A. Michal. 4 Mars 1801-22 Mars 1875.

Z. A. Michal. 4 Mars 1801-22 Mars 1875.

Adolphe Alphand

Hachette Livre - BNF
2016
pokkari
Z. A. Michal. (4 mars 1801-22 mars 1875.) / par M. Alphand]Date de l'edition originale: 1875Sujet de l'ouvrage: Michal, Z.-A.Ce livre est la reproduction fidele d'une oeuvre publiee avant 1920 et fait partie d'une collection de livres reimprimes a la demande editee par Hachette Livre, dans le cadre d'un partenariat avec la Bibliotheque nationale de France, offrant l'opportunite d'acceder a des ouvrages anciens et souvent rares issus des fonds patrimoniaux de la BnF.Les oeuvres faisant partie de cette collection ont ete numerisees par la BnF et sont presentes sur Gallica, sa bibliotheque numerique.En entreprenant de redonner vie a ces ouvrages au travers d'une collection de livres reimprimes a la demande, nous leur donnons la possibilite de rencontrer un public elargi et participons a la transmission de connaissances et de savoirs parfois difficilement accessibles.Nous avons cherche a concilier la reproduction fidele d'un livre ancien a partir de sa version numerisee avec le souci d'un confort de lecture optimal. Nous esperons que les ouvrages de cette nouvelle collection vous apporteront entiere satisfaction.Pour plus d'informations, rendez-vous sur www.hachettebnf.fr
Z Kratkaja istorija Rossii, uvidennaja s ejo kontsa
Chto sluchilos s Rossiej za poslednie tridtsat let posle raspada Sovetskogo Sojuza? Kakoj oborot prinjalo razvitie sobytij v strane? Kakie faktory priveli k tomu, chto Rossija stala takoj, kakaja ona sejchas est? Chto mozhet ozhidat Rossiju v buduschem? Zachastuju vzgljad so storony pozvoljaet privnesti v rassmotrenie drugie aspekty, otkryvaet vozmozhnost dlja bolee mnogostoronnego analiza, pomogaet projasnit kartinu proiskhodjaschego. Izvestnyj nemetskij avtor Olaf Kjul, na protjazhenii mnogikh let sovetnik Pravjaschego burgomistra Berlina po Rossii, sobiraet samye dramatichnye sobytija poslednikh desjatiletij v Rossii i dopolnjaet ikh lichnymi nabljudenijami i otsenkoj. Kak v zerkale, voznikaet nasyschennyj obraz Rossii s tochnym i glubokim opisaniem i analizom proiskhodjaschego.Perevod s nemetskogo: Elena Krabat
Z User Workshop

Z User Workshop

Springer-Verlag Berlin and Heidelberg GmbH Co. K
1990
nidottu
The mathematical concepts and notational conventions we know of as Z were first proposed around 1981. Its origins were in line with the objectives of the PRG - to establish a mathematical basis for program­ ming concepts and to verify the work by case studies with industry. Hence among early Z users some were from academic circles, with interests in the mathematical basis of programming; others came from industry and were involved with pilot projects and case studies linked with the Programming Research Group. Four years ago we had the first Z User Meeting, a fairly modest affair with representatives more or less equally divided between academia and industry. At the first meeting there were, as in this meeting, a variety of technical papers, reports of work in progress and discussions. A number of people from industry came along, either because they had begun to use Z or were curious about the new direction. In the discussion sessions at the end of the meeting, there were calls from attendees for the establishment of a more stable base for the notation, including work on its documentation and standards. Many of these requests have now been satisfied and the notation is now being proposed for standards development.
Z User Workshop, Oxford 1990

Z User Workshop, Oxford 1990

Springer-Verlag Berlin and Heidelberg GmbH Co. K
1991
nidottu
The approach described in [JonSl, JonS3a, JonS3b] set out to extend operation decom- position methods for sequential programs - such as are used in VDM [Jon90] - to cover concurrent shared-variable systems. The essential step in [JonSl] was to recognise that 1 inter/erence had to be specified. This is necessary in order to achieve a notion of compo- sitionality - contrast [Owi75]. Rather than the many erudite definitions of composition- ality (e. g. [ZwiSS]), the view taken here is that, when a development task is decomposed into sub-tasks, these must be simpler than the original 'task. This is easy to achieve for sequential programs: decomposing a specified operation S into (Sl; S2), the specifica- tions of the Sj should neither include unnecessary information from each other nor from the context (i. e. S). An interesting discussion of the 'Quest for Compositionality' (in the context of concurrency) is contained in [dRS5, dRS6]. The rely/guarantee idea provided an existence proof that specifications and developments could be made powerful enough to cope with some forms of interference. The work initially attracted little attention but 2 3 there have recently been some critiques and attempts to extend the work * Most notably, Ketil St~len's thesis [St~90] addresses the main shortcomings of [JonSl]: the fact that no attempt had been made to handle synchronization has been remedied by adding a wait condition and other limitations of expressiveness have been shown to succumb to the judicious use of auxiliary variables.
Z User Workshop, York 1991

Z User Workshop, York 1991

Springer-Verlag Berlin and Heidelberg GmbH Co. K
1992
nidottu
In ordinary mathematics, an equation can be written down which is syntactically correct, but for which no solution exists. For example, consider the equation x = x + 1 defined over the real numbers; there is no value of x which satisfies it. Similarly it is possible to specify objects using the formal specification language Z [3,4], which can not possibly exist. Such specifications are called inconsistent and can arise in a number of ways. Example 1 The following Z specification of a functionf, from integers to integers "f x : ~ 1 x ~ O· fx = x + 1 (i) "f x : ~ 1 x ~ O· fx = x + 2 (ii) is inconsistent, because axiom (i) gives f 0 = 1, while axiom (ii) gives f 0 = 2. This contradicts the fact that f was declared as a function, that is, f must have a unique result when applied to an argument. Hence no suchfexists. Furthermore, iff 0 = 1 andfO = 2 then 1 = 2 can be deduced! From 1 = 2 anything can be deduced, thus showing the danger of an inconsistent specification. Note that all examples and proofs start with the word Example or Proof and end with the symbol.1.