Understanding Similarities Between Proof of Concept (1) and Proof of Technology (2)

Mar 03, 2025

140 likes | 217 Views

Explore how the concepts of Proof of Concept (PoC) and Proof of Technology (PoT) intertwine, their differences, and how they are essential for project success. Learn to effectively utilize these methods in your ventures.

Share Presentation

Embed Code

ova

Download Presentation

Understanding Similarities Between Proof of Concept (1) and Proof of Technology (2)

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

Proof of (2) is similar to (1)

Affair-Proof Your Marriage

Affair-Proof Your Marriage. Proverbs 7:1-5. God-Given Goals of Marriage. Procreation, Gen 1:28; 4:1 Purity, Heb 13:4; Gen 2:25; 1 Cor 7:2 Partnership, Gen 2:18, 23-24; 1 Pet 3:7. Matthew 19:6. 2.

228 views • 12 slides

Approximately Strategy-Proof Voting

Approximately Strategy-Proof Voting. Eleanor Birrell Rafael Pass Cornell University. The Model. …. u Charlie (A) = 1 u Charlie (B) = .9 u Charlie (C) = .2 . σ Alice = {A,B,C}. σ Bob = {C, A, B}. σ Charlie = {A,C,B}. σ Zelda = {C,B,A}.

223 views • 11 slides

DPA Proof Architecture Evaluation

DPA Proof Architecture Evaluation. N. Valette 1 2 , L. Torres 2 , G. Sassatelli 2 , F. Bancel 1 and N. Bérard 1 1 STMicroelectronics, Smartcard Division 2 LIRMM, Microelectronics Department nicolas.valette@st.com / nicolas.valette@lirmm.fr. Outline. Attacks: State of the Art

330 views • 22 slides

The Proof

The Proof. The business case for newspaper advertising as part of the media mix. Kraft Philadelphia Year 2. The client’s view.

310 views • 21 slides

Continuous Tamper-proof Logging using TPM2.0

Continuous Tamper-proof Logging using TPM2.0. Arunesh Sinha 1 , Limin Jia 1 , Paul England 2 , Jacob R. Lorch 2 1 Carnegie Mellon University, 2 Microsoft Research, Redmond . Motivation. Butler Lampson says Auditing: Post-hoc inspection and punishment

500 views • 33 slides

Proof techniques

Proof techniques. CHAPTER TWO . Formal Logic vs. Real-world Arguments. Real-world arguments, unlike the formal proofs of Chapter 1, are normally dependent on context, not the structure of the argument.

241 views • 11 slides

Proof of the middle levels conjecture

Proof of the middle levels conjecture. Torsten Mütze. The middle layer graph. Consider the cube. 11...1. 111. level 3. level 2. 110. 101. 011. level 1. 100. 010. 001. level 0. 000. 00... 0. Middle layer graph. The middle layer graph. Middle layer of . 10110. 10101.

487 views • 33 slides

Proof

Proof. D and E are the middle points of AB and AC, DE intersects the circle at G and F, CF // AB. Prove: CD = BC; Δ BCD ~ Δ GBD. Prove: 1. CD = BC. Prove: 1. CD = BC Because AD = DB, AE = EC. Prove: 1. CD = BC Because AD = DB, AE = EC Then DE // BC.

462 views • 22 slides

PROOF

PROOF. Grammar, Punctuation, Mechanics. 1) PHRASE FRAGMENTS. She never talks about her inner feelings. Her feeling of fear or joy. 2) CLAUSE FRAGMENT. The play failed. Because it received three bad reviews. . 3) RUN-ON. He trained hard he never considered the strain. . 4) COMMA SPLICE.

280 views • 16 slides

Using Two Pairs of Congruent Triangles in a Proof

Using Two Pairs of Congruent Triangles in a Proof. AEB, AC  AD, 1. Given BC  BD. 1). 2. AB  AB 2. Reflexive. C. 3. ACB  ADB 3. SSS  SSS. 4. CAE  DAE 4. CPCTC. E. B. A. 5. AE  AE 5. Reflexive. 6. ACE  ADE 6. SAS  SAS. D. 7. CE  DE 7. CPCTC.

202 views • 8 slides

Continuous Tamper-proof Logging using TPM2.0

Continuous Tamper-proof Logging using TPM2.0. Arunesh Sinha 1 , Limin Jia 1 , Paul England 2 , Jacob R. Lorch 2 1 Carnegie Mellon University, 2 Microsoft Research, Redmond. Motivation. Butler Lampson says Auditing: Post-hoc inspection and punishment

456 views • 33 slides

Aloha Proof Module Design

Aloha Proof Module Design. Cabled Observatory Presentation School of Ocean and Earth Science and Technology February 2006. Purpose. Proof of Concept Long term testing of data communications capabilities. Prepare for full observatory phase 2 deployment: Any modifications learn from phase 1

303 views • 17 slides

Proof of performance

Actual Revenue with internal avoidable outflows (Bus Shelter). Sample: 50 units. Compliance. 2%. Track lease expiry. 2%. Before OMMS ee solution. Over and under. payment. 2%. Tracking double. booking. 1%. Proof of performance. 10%. Document. maintenance. 2%. Maintenance of.

220 views • 6 slides

Proof Methods & strategies

Proof Methods & strategies. Section 1.7. Proof by Cases. We use the rule of inference P 1  P 2  ...  P n  q  ( P 1  q)  ( P 2  q)  ..  ( P n  q). Exhaustive Proof. A special type of proof by cases where each case can be checked by examining an example.

417 views • 10 slides

Proof techniques

Proof techniques. CHAPTER TWO. Formal Logic vs. Real-world Arguments. Real-world arguments, unlike the formal proofs of Chapter 1, are normally dependent on context, not the structure of the argument.

247 views • 11 slides

Geometry: Geometric Proof Introduction

Geometry: Geometric Proof Introduction. Chapter 2: Logic. Do Now. Given: If (5x+1)/2 – 8 = 0 Prove: x = 3. Homework. Questions? Comments? Confusions Ask Ask Ask !. Test. Any questions about the test?!?!?! ASK ASK ASK !. Yesterday. Algebraic Proofs TODAY: Geometric Proofs!.

446 views • 13 slides

Proof: A | C -- lemma :/++

Proof: A | C -- lemma :/++. ++:: [t] -> [t] -> [t] [] ++ y = y (x:xs) ++ y = x:(xs ++ y). (1) (2). da ++ A:. segue C:. (x:xs) ++ y = [x]++(xs ++ y). Lemma:/++. Proof: ( riduzione di termini uguali ) (x:zs) ++ ys = x:(zs++y) -- (2) ma, per ogni w:

202 views • 4 slides

Proof of concept studies for surface-based mechanical property reconstruction

Proof of concept studies for surface-based mechanical property reconstruction. Ashton Peters 1 , Lawrence A. Ray 2 , J. Geoffrey Chase 1 , Elijah E.W. Van Houten 1. 1. University of Canterbury, Christchurch, NZ 2. Eastman Kodak Company, Rochester, NY, USA. Introduction. Motivation.

682 views • 56 slides

Algebraic Proof

Algebraic Proof. Warm Up. Lesson Presentation. Lesson Quiz. Holt McDougal Geometry. Holt Geometry. t = –. 5 2. Warm Up Solve each equation. 1. 3 x + 5 = 17 2. r – 3.5 = 8.7 3. 4 t – 7 = 8 t + 3 4. 5. 2( y – 5) – 20 = 0. x = 4. r = 12.2. n = –38. y = 15. Objectives.

372 views • 30 slides

Aloha Proof Module Design

184 views • 17 slides

More Related

Understanding Similarities Between Proof of Concept (1) and Proof of Technology (2)

Understanding Similarities Between Proof of Concept (1) and Proof of Technology (2)

Presentation Transcript

Affair-Proof Your Marriage

Approximately Strategy-Proof Voting

DPA Proof Architecture Evaluation

The Proof

Continuous Tamper-proof Logging using TPM2.0

Proof techniques

Proof of the middle levels conjecture

Proof

PROOF

Using Two Pairs of Congruent Triangles in a Proof

Continuous Tamper-proof Logging using TPM2.0

Aloha Proof Module Design

Proof of performance

Proof Methods &amp; strategies

Proof techniques

Geometry: Geometric Proof Introduction

Proof: A | C -- lemma :/++

Proof of concept studies for surface-based mechanical property reconstruction

Algebraic Proof

Aloha Proof Module Design

Proof Methods & strategies