The simplified optimisation algorithm has no implementation impact.
However, the method as presented in the paper could be used as an optimisation run-time flag in closed implementations, such as the SCA C-Linda. Although unlikely, in an open system this makes the optimisation unacceptable. optimisation algorithm does not work when deadlock is explicitly employed in the program (by causing a tuple space access primitive to block (forever) a thread of computation). The case that causes this is described, and a simplification of the method is presented which provides nearly the same degree of optimisation without altering the semantics. Subsequent work on the formal proof of the optimisation described in the paper has shown a particular case when the optimisation allows behaviour that is not possible using the traditional Linda semantics. The chapter also considers older and more recent stresses and strains on the beyond reasonable doubt concept. My chapter will suggest both how legal investigations dealing with questions of fact, doubt, judgement and certainty have drawn on non-legal evidentiary traditions and how these in turn have drawn on legal conceptualisations of standards of proof.
My focus on the origin and development of the concept of beyond reasonable doubt and the more recent reservations about its value in the legal sphere can be illuminated by the contributions of disciplinary traditions that extend beyond the legal arena. The iconic phrase ‘proof beyond reasonable doubt’, which for well over a century has been associated with the Anglo-American legal system, is one that calls attention to the concepts of judgement, fact, evidence, credibility, doubt, probability - concepts that have for many generations occupied theologians, casuists, scientists, philosophers, legal scholars and, more recently, literary scholars.
0 kommentar(er)
