为什么部分设计验证比它应该做的更好

25th ACM/IEEE, Design Automation Conference.Proceedings 1988. Pub Date : 1988-06-01 DOI:10.1109/DAC.1988.14846

J. Savir

{"title":"为什么部分设计验证比它应该做的更好","authors":"J. Savir","doi":"10.1109/DAC.1988.14846","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The problem of verifying the correctness of a combinatorial design is known to be NP-complete. Nevertheless, most products reaching the consumer are functionally correct. The author attempts to explain this phenomenon by considering the effort of going through a less-than-perfect design-verification process and then explains why many design errors are relatively easily caught.<<ETX>>","PeriodicalId":230716,"journal":{"name":"25th ACM/IEEE, Design Automation Conference.Proceedings 1988.","volume":"5 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"1988-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Why partial design verification works better than it should\",\"authors\":\"J. Savir\",\"doi\":\"10.1109/DAC.1988.14846\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"The problem of verifying the correctness of a combinatorial design is known to be NP-complete. Nevertheless, most products reaching the consumer are functionally correct. The author attempts to explain this phenomenon by considering the effort of going through a less-than-perfect design-verification process and then explains why many design errors are relatively easily caught.<<ETX>>\",\"PeriodicalId\":230716,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"25th ACM/IEEE, Design Automation Conference.Proceedings 1988.\",\"volume\":\"5 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"1988-06-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"2\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"25th ACM/IEEE, Design Automation Conference.Proceedings 1988.\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1109/DAC.1988.14846\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"25th ACM/IEEE, Design Automation Conference.Proceedings 1988.","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1109/DAC.1988.14846","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 2

摘要

验证组合设计正确性的问题被称为np完全问题。然而，大多数到达消费者手中的产品在功能上是正确的。作者试图通过考虑经历一个不太完美的设计验证过程的努力来解释这一现象，然后解释为什么许多设计错误相对容易被发现。

本文章由计算机程序翻译，如有差异，请以英文原文为准。

查看原文本刊更多论文

Why partial design verification works better than it should

The problem of verifying the correctness of a combinatorial design is known to be NP-complete. Nevertheless, most products reaching the consumer are functionally correct. The author attempts to explain this phenomenon by considering the effort of going through a less-than-perfect design-verification process and then explains why many design errors are relatively easily caught.<>

求助全文

通过发布文献求助，成功后即可免费获取论文全文。去求助

来源期刊

25th ACM/IEEE, Design Automation Conference.Proceedings 1988.

自引率

0.00%

发文量