Rainbow Tables (probably) aren’t what you think - An explanation of how rainbow tables differ from lookup tables Computer Science

---

• Rainbow Tables (probably) aren’t what you think - An explanation of how rainbow tables differ from lookup tables
• What are the differences between the topics covered by these books on concurrency?
• Shallow Heap vs. Retained Heap
• Decidable languages, can anyone help?
• Why is (P + Q) | (P + Q) reduced to P | Q in the pi calculus?

Rainbow Tables (probably) aren’t what you think - An explanation of how rainbow tables differ from lookup tables Posted: 10 Apr 2021 01:19 PM PDT submitted by /u/I_run_Arch_BTW [link] [comments]

What are the differences between the topics covered by these books on concurrency? Posted: 10 Apr 2021 06:59 PM PDT Are the following four books on the same topics? What are the differences between the topics that they cover? Distributed Computing: Fundamentals, Simulations, and Advanced Topics, by Attiya, Hagit, and Welch, Jennifer Foundations of Multithreaded, Parallel, and Distributed Programming, by Gregory Andrews Principles of Concurrent and Distributed Programming, by Mordechai Ben-Ari On Concurrent Programming, by Fred B. Schneider Is it correct that the first two cover completely different topics, the third book cover the topics in the first two books, the last book I am not sure about, but looks similar to the second or the third book? Thanks. submitted by /u/timlee126 [link] [comments]

Shallow Heap vs. Retained Heap Posted: 10 Apr 2021 09:58 PM PDT submitted by /u/mike_jack [link] [comments]

Decidable languages, can anyone help? Posted: 10 Apr 2021 09:01 PM PDT I have found 2 problems without a solution and i would like to know how i could tackle them. 1)For any alphabet (supposedly a) and any natural number k, a language of strings at least k is decidable. 2)Supposedly A,B dfa's and L(A), L(B) their languages. D is the set of strings that accept strictly one of those dfa's.If D is infinite does that make the problem decidable? submitted by /u/Agaeus [link] [comments]

Why is (P + Q) | (P + Q) reduced to P | Q in the pi calculus? Posted: 10 Apr 2021 06:06 PM PDT In Varela's Programming Distributed Computing Systems, 5.4.2 Mutual Exclusion in the Join Calculus mentions using join calculus to simulate !(P + Q) in Pi calculus, where he wrote that !(P + Q) is reduced to P | Q | !(P + Q), as follows: !(P + Q) ≡∗ (P + Q) | (P + Q) | !(P + Q) −τ→∗ P | Q | !(P + Q). Why is (P + Q) | (P + Q) reduced to P | Q ? Note that this is a question purely about the pi calculus, and has nothing to do with the join calculus. P | Q means concurrent composition of P and Q. P + Q means nondeterministic choice of P or Q. The syntax of the pi calculus is summarized in Figure 3.1 π calculus syntax.. The operational semantics of the pi calculus is summarized in Figure 3.6 π calculus operational semantics. Thanks. submitted by /u/timlee126 [link] [comments]

You are subscribed to email updates from Computer Science: Theory and Application. To stop receiving these emails, you may unsubscribe now.	Email delivery powered by Google
Google, 1600 Amphitheatre Parkway, Mountain View, CA 94043, United States