Does formal specification of UX needs special language apart from the general specification languages?

I am fan of Alloy and CASL specification languages and my question is – what is the common practice regarding the formal methods in UX? Does UX require distinct specification languages? Generally one can use any specification language to describe: 1) the graphical layout of the screen and available commands; 2) the content of the available commands. UX just gives additional constraints on the specification, some non-logical (outside, empirical) guidelines of the content on the specification. Or I am wrong and computer science community has special methods for modern graphical web/mobile/TV/device/wearable programming and for modern UX programming?

Does there exist a finite automaton for the given language?

The question is simple and given as, alphabet $ A$ is $ \{a, b\}$ , and language $ L$ over $ A$ :

$ L = \{w: w \in \{a, b\}^*, n(a) – n(b) = 1 \mod 3\}$ . Here $ n(a)$ = number of $ a$ and $ n(b)$ is number of $ b$ .

My answer is that it’s not a regular language because the modular expression can be simplified as. $ n(a) =n(b) +3k+1$ and hence there is a comparison in between the two alphabets. Further comparison are infinite but a finite automaton has only finite memory which are associated with states.

So we can say the above language is not regular hence no finite automaton for it. But there is a problem, I have read a book by Linz in which the above question was given stating that find the regular expression for it. I am a bit confused so any help will be appreciated. I would also be interested in a general approach to answer this type of question.

Language dialects Django model

I’m creating the Dictionary app, where you can search for words, click on a word, and show the same word in other dialects of the language. I have now created the following Django model:

from django.db import models  from .base_models import BaseModel   class WordCoreModel(models.Model, BaseModel):     word_core = models.CharField(max_length=255, default="")     word_russian_typed = models.CharField(max_length=255, default="", blank=True)     word_english_typed = models.CharField(max_length=255, default="", blank=True)      homonyms = models.ManyToManyField('self', null=True, blank=True)     synonyms = models.ManyToManyField('self', null=True, blank=True)     antonyms = models.ManyToManyField('self', null=True, blank=True)      class Meta:         indexes = [models.Index(fields=['word_core'])]         verbose_name = 'Core Word'         verbose_name_plural = 'Core Words'      def __str__(self):         return self.word_core   class FirstDialectVariant(models.Model):     word = models.ForeignKey(WordCoreModel, on_delete=models.CASCADE)     dialect = models.CharField(max_length=255, default="")   class SecondDialectVariant(models.Model):     word = models.ForeignKey(WordCoreModel, on_delete=models.CASCADE)     dialect = models.CharField(max_length=255, default="")   class ThirdDialectVariant(models.Model):     word = models.ForeignKey(WordCoreModel, on_delete=models.CASCADE)     dialect = models.CharField(max_length=255, default="")   class FourthDialectVariant(models.Model):     word = models.ForeignKey(WordCoreModel, on_delete=models.CASCADE)     dialect = models.CharField(max_length=255, default="")   class FifthDialectVariant(models.Model):     word = models.ForeignKey(WordCoreModel, on_delete=models.CASCADE)     dialect = models.CharField(max_length=255, default="")   class SixthDialectVariant(models.Model):     word = models.ForeignKey(WordCoreModel, on_delete=models.CASCADE)     dialect = models.CharField(max_length=255, default="") 

But I’m not sure if I’m doing it right. Could you advise me how best to do that?

A programming language extending Scheme with static typing [on hold]

I have developed programming language called Theme-D extending Scheme with static typing. See Theme-D home page.

Some features of Theme-D include

* Static type system * A simple object system * Multi-methods dispatched runtime (and also compile-time) * Parametrized (type parameters) classes, types, and procedures * Signature types resembling Java interfaces but multiply dispatched * A module system * Two kinds of variables: constants and mutable variables 

I have also written a wrapper library for guile-gnome so it is possible to make GUI’s with Theme-D.

Any comments?

Multi language support for Client Side webpart with New SharePoint Development Framework

I have created a sample Hello world webpart using the Examples provided at Office site

Webpart has a Property called “Description” in Property Pane which displayed in English Language.

I would like to display in “Description” in German language for German User. Is it possible to do so, I try to refer this Page to get understanding of how Resource Localisation works, but not got much Help.

I wanted to know is it possible if i force in my code to load specfic Language Resource file. Currently in Config.json of the solution I have

“localizedResources”: { “expStrings”: “webparts/exp/loc/{locals}.js” }

Under the Resource files i have en-us.js and de-de.js , how i can force code to load de-de.js instead of en-us.js.

I have requirement to Display the Webpart Description based on Users Language.

Thanks in advance for help

Mapping reducibility from recursive to recursively enumerable language

I want to find out whether, assuming a language $ L_1$ being mapping reducible (i.e., $ L_1$ maps to $ L_2$ and the complement of $ L_1$ maps to the complement of $ L_2$ ) to a language $ L_2$ and $ L_2$ being recursively enumerable, $ L_1$ is recursive or not.

I tried creating a recursive Turing machine for $ L_1$ by using the recursively enumerable machine of $ L_2$ , but if the input belongs to the complement of $ L_1$ , its mapping will also be in the complement of $ L_2$ and we cannot say anything about it.

So I tried proving by contradiction instead: Assuming $ L_1$ is recursive, show that our assumption that $ L_2$ is recursively enumerable is wrong. However, this will require an inverse mapping. Alternatively, we could also try assuming $ L_1$ is recursive and show that such a mapping cannot exist, but I can’t think of any approach to it.

Can someone help me?


Mapping reducibility of two languages $ L_1$ and $ L_2$ is defined as a function which, when given a string in $ L_1$ , gives as output a string in $ L_2$ and, when given as input a string in $ L_1$ complement, gives as output a string in $ L_2$ complement.

Is there a problem in this BN form language?

I am working on a simple text query language. I am using the SLY parser, which itself is an LR parser/shift-reduce parser. I am running into problems with the following language specification, but I don’t understand why. All I’m trying to do is appropriately group logical statements involving the operators AND and OR (in which AND gets precedence over OR and the statements are left associative) and “words”, which is basically anything other than “AND” or “OR”. The language is below. What is the problem?

LOGICAL ::= <WORD> <OPERATOR> <WORD>          | <WORD> <OPERATOR> <LOGICAL>         | <LOGICAL> <OPERATOR> <WORD>         | <LOGICAL> <OPERATOR> <WORD>  OPERATOR ::= "AND"             | "OR"  WORD ::= any string other than "AND" or "OR" 

Also, for the record I don’t know how to express “WORD” in a more formal way, so I’d appreciate any input.