## 5 Characteristics of a Tested Object--Station System
- (PA1 Za21/4 + PA1 Za32/4 + PA1 Za42/4 + PA1 Za51/4) +
3 * (PA2 Za21/3 + PA2 Za31/3 + PA2 Za61/3) +
3 * (PA4 Za21/3 + PA4 Za31/3 + PA4 Za62/3) +
3 * (PB1 Za11/3 + PB1 Za41/3 + PB1 Za51/3) +
3 * (PB2 Za12/4 + PB2 Za22/4 + PB2 Za31/4 + PB2 Za61/4) +
10 * (PB4 Za12/4 + PB4 Za22/4 + PB4 Za31/4 + PB4 Za62/4),  
- Condition of checking each control and monitoring algorithm at least once:  
PB1 Za11 \(\geq\) 1 &&  
PB2 Za12 + PB4 Za12 \(\geq\) 1 &&  
PA1 Za21 + PA2a2a1 + PA4 Za21 \(\geq\) 1 &&  
PB2 Za22 + PB4 Za22 \(\geq\) 1 &&  
PA2 Za31 + PA4 Za31 + PB2 Za31 + PB4 Za31 \(\geq\) 1 &&  
(PB1 Za11 + PB1 Za41 + PB1 Za51 == 0 || PB1 Za41 + PB1 Za51 == 3) &&  
\(-\) The condition of not every check must be used:  
0 \(\leq\) PA1 Za21 \(\leq\) 1 && 0 \(\leq\) PA1 Za32 \(\leq\) 1 && 0 \(\leq\) PA1 Za42 \(\leq\) 1 && 0 \(\leq\) PA1 Za51 \(\leq\) 1 &&  
0 \(\leq\) PA2 Za21 \(\leq\) 1 && 0 \(\leq\) PA2 Za31 \(\leq\) 1 && 0 \(\leq\) PA2 Za61 \(\leq\) 1 &&  
0 \(\leq\) PA4 Za21 \(\leq\) 1 && 0 \(\leq\) PA4 Za31 \(\leq\) 1 && 0 \(\leq\) PA4 Za62 \(\leq\) 1 &&  
0 \(\leq\) PB1 Za11 \(\leq\) 1 && 0 \(\leq\) P1 Za41 \(\leq\) 1 && 0 \(\leq\) PB1 Za51 \(\leq\) 1 &&  
0 \(\leq\) PB2 Za12 \(\leq\) 1 && 0 \(\leq\) PB2 Za22 \(\leq\) 1 && 0 \(\leq\) PB2 Za31 \(\leq\) 1 && 0 \(\leq\) PB2 Za61 \(\leq\) 1 &&  
0 \(\leq\) PB4 Za12 \(\leq\) 1 && 0 \(\leq\) PB4 Za22 \(\leq\) 1 && 0 \(\leq\) PB4 Za31 \(\leq\) 1 && 0 \(\leq\) PB4 Za62 \(\leq\) 1\(\mid\)  
(PA1 Za21, PA1 Za32, PA1 Za42, PA1 Za51,  
PA2 Za21, PA2 Za31, PA2 Za61,  
PA4 Za21, PA4 Za31, PA4 Za62,  
PB1 Za11, PB1 Za41, PB1 Za51,  
PB2 Za12, PB2 Za2, PB2 Za31, PB2 Za61,  
PB4 Za12, PB4 Za22, PB4 Za31, PB4 Za62]]] - Output data:  
Out [2] = {12, [PA1 Za21 \(\to\) 1, PA1 Za32 \(\to\) 1, PA1 Za42 \(\to\) 1, PA1 Za51 \(\to\) 1, PA2 Za21 \(\to\) 0, PA2 Za31 \(\to\) 0, PA2 Za61 \(\to\) 0, PA4 Za21 \(\to\) 1, PA4 Za31 \(\to\) 1, PA4 Za62 \(\to\) 1, PB1 Za11 \(\to\) 1, PB1 Za41 \(\to\) 1,  
PB1 Za51 \(\to\) 1, PB2 Za12 \(\to\) 1, PB2 Za22 \(\to\) 1, PB2 Za31 \(\to\) 1, PB2 Za61 \(\to\) 1, PB4 Za12 \(\to\) 0, PB4 Za22 \(\to\) 0, PB4 Za31 \(\to\) 0, PB4 Za62 \(\to\) 0\(\mid\)  
where:  
\(-\) 12--overall cost of implementing a determined test set;  
\(-\) \"\(\to\) 1\" designation of algorithms selected by the program;  
\(-\) \"\(\to\) 0\" designation of algorithms not selected by the program. The resulting data may be presented on a task board (Figure 6). Board cells in blue have been determined by the program, and can be checked by implementing a given check in the row they are in. The A1, A4, B1 and B2 tasks must be implemented to obtain information on the functional state of points algorithms. There is no need to execute all tasks, and, therefore, the result is an optimal set of tasks to be performed. The cost is also determined by the program. The cost of implementing a determined set is 12, which is the sum of the costs for individual checks. To assess the result, one can calculate the effect that will be understood as the ratio between determined check costs and costs of all checks (25). Effectiveness is at a level of 0.48. As is evident, these are all the possible algorithms testable using the determined tasks, which can be verified by the fact that at least one cell in the columns has been marked in blue. Therefore, the condition that all algorithms must be checked at least once has been met. The second condition that not all tasks must be applied is also, additionally, met. To verify the method, the task set can be determined manually: To start with, let us determine the algorithms that appear individually in the columns. These are a11, a32, a41 and a42. Therefore, tasks A1 and B1 are indispensable tasks (tasks that have to be implemented), since only their implementation will provide information on the functional state of these algorithms. With these two tasks, further supplementary information is needed regarding the rest of the algorithms. Here, it is possible to add sets A2, B4 or A4, B2.