Proof of Theorem 6 Clause Samples

Proof of Theorem 6. 9‌ | | ∈ ≥ Theorem 6.9. There exists s(n) Θ(n) such that, for any field F with char(F) max(l + 2, 63), any ring R = Fn of size R = 2Θ(n) with Hadamard product, and any elementary symmetric polynomial φl, the (s, R)-Subset-φl problem is NP-complete. | |
View SourceView Similar (3)
Proof of Theorem 6. The proof is by induction on n. Suppose first that G is primitive. The result clearly holds when n ≤ 3. When n ≥ 4, we have log n ≤ c1n/ log n, so the result follows immediately from Theorem 2.
View Source

Related to Proof of Theorem 6

  • The Performance Improvement Process (a) The Performance Improvement Process will focus on the risks of non- performance and problem-solving. It may include one or more of the following actions: a requirement that the HSP develop and implement an improvement plan that is acceptable to the Funder; the conduct of a Review; an amendment of the HSP’s obligations; an in-year, or year-end, adjustment to the Funding, among other possible means of responding to the Performance Factor or improving performance. (b) Any performance improvement process begun under a prior service accountability agreement that was not completed under the prior agreement will continue under this Agreement. Any performance improvement required by a Funder under a prior service accountability agreement will be deemed to be a requirement of this Agreement until fulfilled or waived by the Funder.

  • Annual Performance Evaluation On either a fiscal year or calendar year basis, (consistently applied from year to year), the Bank shall conduct an annual evaluation of Executive’s performance. The annual performance evaluation proceedings shall be included in the minutes of the Board meeting that next follows such annual performance review.

  • Performance Evaluations Employee performance shall be evaluated and communicated on a yearly basis as required under County policy. Performance evaluations are used to demonstrate to employees that they are valued; record how an employee’s performance meet the requirements of the job; create a job history record; identify employee strengths and areas for enhancement; assist the employee and supervisor in an effort to attain the highest level of performance; and reinforce performance standards. Every effort will be made to include substantiated information within an employee’s performance evaluation. Non-recurring discipline history which is more than two (2) years old will not be referenced in performance evaluations. The County shall ensure employee performance evaluations are conducted in accordance with County and departmental policy. Performance evaluations and disciplinary matters shall only be conducted by County employees. When an employee who does not agree with the overall rating he/she receives on his/her written performance evaluation, he/she shall discuss and attempt to resolve the differences with his/her immediate supervisor. If discussion with his/her immediate supervisor does not result in resolution of the differences, the employee may file a written request to meet with the next level of management. Said request shall state the unresolved issues and the specific changes in the written performance evaluation the employee is seeking. The appropriate manager shall meet with the employee to discuss the unresolved issues. If the issues are not resolved to the employee’s satisfaction following discussion with the appropriate manager, the employee may within thirty (30) working days file a written request for a meeting with the department head. Within fourteen (14) working days of receipt of a written request stating the unresolved issues and the desired changes in the written performance evaluation, the department head shall meet with the employee to discuss the issues. Within ten (10) working days of said meeting, the department head shall respond in writing to the employee. The decision of the Department Head shall be final and not subject to the grievance procedure. An employee may submit a written response to his/her evaluation that shall be placed in his/her personnel file.

  • Performance Management 17.1 The Contractor will appoint a suitable Account Manager to liaise with the Authority’s Strategic Contract Manager. Any/all changes to the terms and conditions of the Agreement will be agreed in writing between the Authority’s Strategic Contract Manager and the Contractor’s appointed representative. 17.2 The Contractor will ensure that there will be dedicated resources to enable the smooth running of the Framework Agreement and a clear plan of contacts at various levels within the Contractor's organisation. Framework Public Bodies may look to migrate to this Framework Agreement as and when their current contractual arrangements expire. The Contractor will where necessary assign additional personnel to this Framework Agreement to ensure agreed service levels are maintained and to ensure a consistent level of service is delivered to all Framework Public Bodies. 17.3 In addition to annual meetings with the Authority's Strategic Contract Manager, the Contractor is expected to develop relationships with nominated individuals within each of the Framework Public Bodies to ensure that the level of service provided on a local basis is satisfactory. Where specific problems are identified locally, the Contractor will attempt to resolve such problems with the nominated individual within that organisation. The Authority's Strategic Contract Manager will liaise (or meet as appropriate) regularly with the Framework Public Bodies' Contract Manager, and where common problems are identified, it will be the responsibility of the Contractor to liaise with the Authority's Strategic Contract Manager to agree a satisfactory course of action. Where the Contractor becomes aware of a trend that would have a negative effect on one or more of the Framework Public Bodies, they should immediately notify the Authority's Strategic Contract Manager to discuss corrective action. 17.4 Regular meetings, frequency to be advised by Framework Public Body, will be held between the Framework Public Bodies' Contract Manager and the Contractor's representative to review the performance of their Call-Off Contract(s) under this Framework Agreement against the agreed service levels as measured through Key Performance Indicators (KPIs). Reports will be provided by the Contractor to the Framework Public Bodies' Contract Manager at least 14 days prior to the these meetings. 17.5 Performance review meetings will also be held annually, between the Authority's Strategic Contract Manager and the Contractor's representative to review the performance of the Framework Agreement against the agreed service levels as measured through Key Performance Indicators. A summary of the quarterly reports will be provided by the Contractor at least 14 days prior to these meetings. 17.6 The Authority will gather the outputs from contract management to review under the areas detailed in the table below. Provision of management reports 90% to be submitted within 10 working days of the month end Report any incident affecting the delivery of the Service(s) to the Framework Public Body 100% to be reported in writing to FPB within 24 hours of the incident being reported by telephone/email Prompt payment of sub-contractors and/or consortia members (if applicable). Maximum of 30 from receipt of payment from Framework Public Bodies, 10 days target 100% within 30 days

  • STATEWIDE ACHIEVEMENT TESTING When CONTRACTOR is a NPS, per implementation of Senate Bill 484, CONTRACTOR shall administer all Statewide assessments within the California Assessment of Student Performance and Progress (“CAASPP”), Desired Results Developmental Profile (“DRDP”), California Alternative Assessment (“CAA”), achievement and abilities tests (using LEA-authorized assessment instruments), the Fitness Gram, , the English Language Proficiency Assessments for California (“ELPAC”), and as appropriate to the student, and mandated by LEA pursuant to LEA and state and federal guidelines. CONTRACTOR is subject to the alternative accountability system developed pursuant to Education Code section 52052, in the same manner as public schools. Each LEA student placed with CONTRACTOR by the LEA shall be tested by qualified staff of CONTRACTOR in accordance with that accountability program. ▇▇▇ shall provide test administration training to CONTRACTOR’S qualified staff. CONTRACTOR shall attend LEA test training and comply with completion of all coding requirements as required by ▇▇▇.