Bissoy.com
Doctors Medicines MCQs Q&A

Related Questions

Consider the following grammar (that admits a series of declarations, followed by expressions) and the associated syntax directed translation (SDT) actions, given as pseudo-code: P → D* E* D → int ID {record that ID.lexeme is of type int} D → bool ID { record that ID.lexeme is of type bool} E → E1 + E2 {check that E1.type = E2.type = int; set E.type := int} E → !E1 {check that E1.type = bool; set E.type := bool} E → ID {set E.type := int} With respect to the above grammar; which one of the following choices is correct?
Assertion (A): Where any special or local law prescribes for any suit appeal or application a period of limitation different from period prescribed by the Schedule, the provisions of Section 3 of Limitation Act, 1963 shall apply as if such period were the period prescribed by the schedule.
Reason (R): Where a Special Law prescribes a period of limitation for filing appeal but there is no provision therefore under Limitation Act, 1963, the period of limitation provided under the Special Law must be treated to be different from that under the Limitation Act.
Consider a system described by ẋ = Ax + Bu y = Cx + Du The system is completely output controllable if and only if Where: x = State vector (n-vector) u = Control vector (r-vector) y = Output vector (m-vector) A = n × n matrix B = n × r matrix C = m × n matrix D = m × r matrix
Simplify : $${{{5 \over 3} \times {7 \over {51}}{\text{ of }}{{17} \over 5} - {1 \over 3}} \over {{2 \over 9} \times {5 \over 7}{\text{ of }}{{28} \over 5} - {2 \over 3}}}$$
In which of the following case, the court has held that limitation period as provided in the Limitation Act, 1963 would extend seven years by virtue of Section 39 of the Limitation Act, since a period of 30 years. Thus making Limitation period for redemption of Mortgage as 37 years
Under limitation Act, any suit for which no period of limitation is provided elsewhere in schedule of the limitation Act, the limitation would be
Consider the following three statements about link state and distance vector routing protocols, for a large network with 500 network nodes and 4000 links. [S1] The computational overhead in link state protocols is higher than in distance vector protocols. [S2] A distance vector protocol (with split horizon) avoids persistent routing loops, but not a link state protocol. [S3] After a topology change, a link state protocol will converge faster than a distance vector protocol. Which one of the following is correct about S1, S2, and S3?
In rolling, there is the involvement of the vector math. So for rolling which of the following is correct? (For A representing the vector representation of the axis of rotation, r the radius vector and F the force vector)
The Burgers vector b is the vector which defines the magnitude and direction of slip. For a pure edge dislocation, the Burgers vector is perpendicular to the dislocation line, while for a pure screw dislocation, the Burgers vector is parallel to the dislocation line.
The transfer function of a discrete time LTI system is given by
$$H\left( z \right) = {{2 - {3 \over 4}{z^{ - 1}}} \over {1 - {3 \over 4}{z^{ - 1}} + {1 \over 8}{z^{ - 2}}}}$$
Consider the following statements:
S1 : The system is stable and causal for
$$ROC:\left| z \right| > {1 \over 2}$$
S2 : The system is stable but not causal for
$$ROC:\left| z \right| S3 : The system is neither stable nor causal for
$$ROC:{1 \over 4} Which one of the following statements is valid?