Final Exam

[duncan020313]

안녕하세요.
기말고사에 대해 공지 드립니다.
아래의 내용을 반드시 숙지해 주세요.

시험 정보

1. 일시: 12월 15일 (월) 오전 9:00 ~ 10:40 (100분)
2. 장소: N1 102호 (강의실과 동일)
3. 형식: 오픈북 (단, 전자기기 사용 금지)
4. 주의사항:
   • 답안 작성 언어
       한국어가 모국어인 학생: 한국어로 작성
       기타 학생: 영어로 작성
   • 시험 중 질문 금지
      시험 도중에는 질문이 불가능합니다.
      문제가 명확하지 않다고 생각할 경우, 자신만의 타당한 가정을 세운 후 이를 답안에 명시해주세요. 가정의 품질도 채점의 대상이니 비합리적이거나 너무 강한 가정은 피하길 바랍니다.
5. 채점 기준

• 각 문항은 여러개 소문항으로 구성되어 있습니다.
• 각 소문항 안에서는 부분 점수가 없으며, 모든 답변이 정확할 경우에만 점수를 부여합니다. 즉, 불필요한 내용이 포함되면 감점될 수 있으니 답변은 간결하게 작성하시기 바랍니다. 답변의 간결성도 채점의 대상입니다.

감사합니다.

---

Here are the details of the exam you must be aware of.
Please read carefully and be ready for the exam.

1. Time: Dec 16. (Mon) 9:00 - 10:40 (100 mins)
2. Place: N1 102 (same place as the lecture room)
3. Format: Open book, but no digital devices allowed
4. Caution:

• Your answers must be written in Korean if you are a native Korean student; English otherwise
• No questions are allowed during the exam. If anything is unclear, come up with your own valid assumption and provide it with the answer. The quality of assumptions will also be evaluated, so please avoid making unreasonable or overly strong assumptions.

5. Grading:

• Each question consists of multiple sub-questions.
• Partial credit is not awarded within individual sub-questions; points will only be given if all answers are entirely correct. In other words, including unnecessary information may result in point deductions. Therefore, please keep your answers concise, as conciseness will also be evaluated.

Thank you.

[jqpz]

Hello, since we don't have access to any exam solutions, I have some questions about what counts as "entirely correct". Especially in regards to formatting and required explanation.
For this I will refer to the tasks in the 2023 Exam.

Problem 1:
I'm assuming we are not supposed to add any explanation for the O/X questions. Is that assumption correct?

Problem 2:
The only reference is the predicate definition in the Question. Are we allowed to do nesting for the expressions? i.e. good(day(x)) instead of day(x) AND good(x)?

Problem 3:
If we run out of space (since OS tree proofs can have a high width) how are we supposed to split up the tree? From my home university, I am used to write (*1) in the place where i run out of space and then somewhere else on the page i write (*1) next to the rest of my solution and (*2), (*3) and so on for more annotations.

From my understanding for a proof to be complete it shouldn't have any open branches. But if we go strictly by patternmatching for the case〈x,m〉=> n which is resolved to m(x) =>n we can't find a full match. So to be exact it would need to be resolved to 〈m(x), m〉=> n to then match the very first rule. Or are we supposed to leave that branch open?

Problem 4:
If something asks for a counterexample, is it enough to plainly list the value assignments for a counter example or do we have to explain why that is a counterexample. i.e. in this problem would it be enough to list "CE: Interpretation I = {P -> True, Q -> True}" ?

Problem 5:
When it's said that each step of the proof should have clear explanation, to what extent should that go. I'm used to just explain FOL proof by naming the rules i used but in this class we didn't give any names to the rules, so i am unsure what else should be done to explain the steps besides naming rules.

Problem 6 & 7:
I'm assuming we are not supposed to add any explanation for the Hoare Logic and wlp questions, since the text doesn't mention explanations of the calculation/proof steps. Is that assumption correct?

[KihongHeo]

Thanks for your questions.
I can give one general answer that is applicable to all the questions.

The principle all students should keep in mind is "burden of proof". You should provide the proof of your eligibility. The problem set is just a guideline for efficient evaluation. You can add something extra to your solution at your discretion if that helps to prove your eligibility. It may or may not help. Too verbose or incorrect explanations may mislead the evaluators. It is up to you. Conciseness and explainability is also a part of evaluation. If someone clearly understands, he or she can concisely deliver the core concepts.

My intention is as follows: I want students to prepare the evaluation systems that all of you will face in the real world. There will be a common and minimal guideline. All the details should be made by yourself. Up through high school, evaluators bear most of the burden of proof. In the real world, however, this burden falls largely on the individuals being evaluated. I believe that the university-level evaluation system should function as a bridge between these two stages.

Good luck.