https://gateoverflow.in/118640/gate2017-2-44
Actually, the answer provided in GATE-2017 question, didn't satisfy me.
I did with my approach, you may check it.
@BASANT KUMAR
Don't add two different questions, in one post from next time.
NEW APPROACH :-
For question 1 :-
see my answer at https://gateoverflow.in/118640/gate2017-2-44?show=289691#a289691
For question 2:-
Before coming to question 2, please understand the procedure which is used in the Q1, due to it is same concept
For clarity images :- https://drive.google.com/open?id=1dka-cqVm6ZppPI81Mm9WztqV_pG5iMMh
Recommended to see the same type of question https://gateoverflow.in/272638/total-conflict-serializable-schedules
OLD APPROACH :-
For Question 1 :-
For clarity images https://drive.google.com/open?id=1o12YFKd8JLhlXWLB1D3tuph91ENJ0OCd
For Question 2 :-
For Case 3 and Case 4 :-
Note that R2(B) should be after W1(B)
@Shaik Masthan
In the first method, second image –
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Z-tlThOEyVlBjV8Zky5_Wc3z7L-hvSGc/view?usp=sharing
Total number of possibilities such that T2->T1 = T1->T2 = 56 is because of the symmetricity of the DAG, right? i.e if we draw the graph for T2->T1 it will be same as that of T1->T2 with the corresponding labels interchanged(G for A, H for B etc) , right?
64.3k questions
77.9k answers
244k comments
80.0k users