I have come across the following line in a text book (Database System Concepts Textbook by Avi Silberschatz, Henry F. Korth, and S. Sudarshan $6e$) page no. 686:
Thomas’ write rule allows schedules that are not conflict serializable but are nevertheless correct. Those non-conflict-serializable schedules allowed satisfy the definition of view serializable schedules (see example box).
What I understood from the above lines is that every schedule generated by timestamp protocol following Thomas's write rule is view serializable.
Now let's take the following little schedule: $S: R_1(X), W_2(X), W_1(X)$.
This schedule $S$ is allowed under timestamp protocol which follows Thomas's write rule.
And serialization order is $R_1(X), W_1(X).$
But I was not able to prove that it is view serializable.
Actually I think that it is non-view serializable because,
Consider serial order as $T_1, T_2$
Now final value of $X$ is being written by $T_2$. So not equivalent.
Next alternative serial order is $T_2, T_1$
here, $R_1(X)$ will read value of $X$ written by $T_1$ not original value which was there before start of both transaction. So this too is not view-equivalent.
What is going wrong here? Please help me with this one.