From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_MSGID
	autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
X-Google-Thread: 10db24,77f71d0bde4c5bb4
X-Google-Attributes: gid10db24,public
X-Google-Thread: 103376,86fd56abf3579c34
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
From: bh@anarres.CS.Berkeley.EDU (Brian Harvey)
Subject: Re: Problems with proofs
Date: 1995/04/19
Message-ID: <3n439d$3v8@agate.berkeley.edu>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 101283256
references: <3kaksj$iur@isnews.calpoly.edu> <dewar.798207931@gnat>
 <cppD78ywq.B31@netcom.com> <dewar.798240702@gnat>
organization: University of California, Berkeley
newsgroups: comp.lang.ada,comp.edu
Date: 1995-04-19T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

dewar@cs.nyu.edu (Robert Dewar) writes:
>but if, like most people, you find that one of the many weak links on the
>chain is in incorrect implementation of specifications, then proof of
>correctness is one tool in the programmers forge for strengthening this
>link.

Well then I think they should call it "proof of conformance to specification"
rather than "proof of correctness"!