} //Postcondition: (index =1) ^ (2V < x) ^ (x<2v+1) Suppose we have already proved the first two parts of the postcondition, that is, (index 1) and (2Y < x). Now we are trying to prove the last part (x < 2Y+1). If (x < 2Y+1 index) is a loop invariant, can it be used to prove (x < 2Y*1)? Explain why or why not. Yes. Because the statement (x < 2Y+1 index) is true before and after loop execution. Yes. Because it is given that (r<2"+1\index) is an invariant, and (r<2+1*index) is equivalent to (r<2"+1). ONo. Since index = 1, the two sides of the proof %3D would be the same which means there is nothing to prove. O Yes. Because when the loop terminates we have (index=1), so x < 2Y+1index = 2y+1 .

Database System Concepts
7th Edition
ISBN:9780078022159
Author:Abraham Silberschatz Professor, Henry F. Korth, S. Sudarshan
Publisher:Abraham Silberschatz Professor, Henry F. Korth, S. Sudarshan
Chapter1: Introduction
Section: Chapter Questions
Problem 1PE
icon
Related questions
Question
Consider the following loop:
//Precondition: (index=x) ^ (x 2 1) ^ (y=0)
while (index >1)
{
index = index/2;
++y;
}
//Postcondition: (index =1) ^ (2° < x) ^ (x<2♥+1)
Suppose we have already proved the first
two parts of the postcondition, that is, (index
= 1) and (2Y < x). Now we are trying to prove
%D
the last part (x < 2y+1).
If (x < 2Y+1 index) is a loop invariant, can it
be used to prove (x < 2Y+1)? Explain why or
why not.
Yes. Because the statement (x < 2y+1 index) is
true before and after loop execution.
O Yes. Because it is given that (r<2+1*index) is
an invariant, and (x<2+1xindex) is equivalent
to (r<2+1).
O No. Since index = 1, the two sides of the proof
would be the same which means there is
nothing to prove.
Yes. Because when the loop terminates we
have (index=1), so
x < 2y+1index = 2y+1
Transcribed Image Text:Consider the following loop: //Precondition: (index=x) ^ (x 2 1) ^ (y=0) while (index >1) { index = index/2; ++y; } //Postcondition: (index =1) ^ (2° < x) ^ (x<2♥+1) Suppose we have already proved the first two parts of the postcondition, that is, (index = 1) and (2Y < x). Now we are trying to prove %D the last part (x < 2y+1). If (x < 2Y+1 index) is a loop invariant, can it be used to prove (x < 2Y+1)? Explain why or why not. Yes. Because the statement (x < 2y+1 index) is true before and after loop execution. O Yes. Because it is given that (r<2+1*index) is an invariant, and (x<2+1xindex) is equivalent to (r<2+1). O No. Since index = 1, the two sides of the proof would be the same which means there is nothing to prove. Yes. Because when the loop terminates we have (index=1), so x < 2y+1index = 2y+1
Expert Solution
trending now

Trending now

This is a popular solution!

steps

Step by step

Solved in 2 steps

Blurred answer
Similar questions
Recommended textbooks for you
Database System Concepts
Database System Concepts
Computer Science
ISBN:
9780078022159
Author:
Abraham Silberschatz Professor, Henry F. Korth, S. Sudarshan
Publisher:
McGraw-Hill Education
Starting Out with Python (4th Edition)
Starting Out with Python (4th Edition)
Computer Science
ISBN:
9780134444321
Author:
Tony Gaddis
Publisher:
PEARSON
Digital Fundamentals (11th Edition)
Digital Fundamentals (11th Edition)
Computer Science
ISBN:
9780132737968
Author:
Thomas L. Floyd
Publisher:
PEARSON
C How to Program (8th Edition)
C How to Program (8th Edition)
Computer Science
ISBN:
9780133976892
Author:
Paul J. Deitel, Harvey Deitel
Publisher:
PEARSON
Database Systems: Design, Implementation, & Manag…
Database Systems: Design, Implementation, & Manag…
Computer Science
ISBN:
9781337627900
Author:
Carlos Coronel, Steven Morris
Publisher:
Cengage Learning
Programmable Logic Controllers
Programmable Logic Controllers
Computer Science
ISBN:
9780073373843
Author:
Frank D. Petruzella
Publisher:
McGraw-Hill Education