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=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=ham
	autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Thread: 103376,2ff5c149712ec0eb
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public,usenet
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
Path: 
 g2news1.google.com!news1.google.com!news.glorb.com!news2.arglkargh.de!noris.net!newsfeed.arcor.de!newsspool2.arcor-online.net!news.arcor.de.POSTED!not-for-mail
Date: Fri, 01 Jun 2007 13:41:11 +0200
From: Georg Bauhaus <bauhaus@futureapps.de>
Organization: elsewhere
User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.12 (Macintosh/20070509)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: Ada Interfaces and the Liskov Substitution Principle
References: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0705232101220.20072@th.informatik.uni-mannheim.de>
 <1179953657.839272.160320@a26g2000pre.googlegroups.com>
 <f32d9o$fi9$1@jacob-sparre.dk>
 <1179991769.376381.252010@m36g2000hse.googlegroups.com>
 <12h6mi42jcha0.7f9vfsnihjwr$.dlg@40tude.net>
 <1180003336.1163.29.camel@kartoffel> <83abvs7sa9.fsf@hod.lan.m-e-leypold.de>
 <465aa5ba$0$23147$9b4e6d93@newsspool1.arcor-online.net>
 <qa3sb6w0a0n9.i2vpzirsrrfc.dlg@40tude.net>
 <465b6606$0$10188$9b4e6d93@newsspool4.arcor-online.net>
 <i3klun83mxpk.kwz6ot6mqpd1.dlg@40tude.net>
 <1180445634.5664.23.camel@kartoffel>
 <39viqigjwhrb$.gz67xvpinyjr.dlg@40tude.net>
 <465c9077$0$23135$9b4e6d93@newsspool1.arcor-online.net>
 <cb1jpulo7dok$.1voakie5wr69g.dlg@40tude.net>
 <1180531107.16197.30.camel@kartoffel>
 <w9mu1i6kf35l.1hzzhvo03fs5b.dlg@40tude.net>
 <1180611880.16197.59.camel@kartoffel>
 <cq8h8nf3efna$.b8bgpgt0snnf.dlg@40tude.net>
In-Reply-To: <cq8h8nf3efna$.b8bgpgt0snnf.dlg@40tude.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-ID: <46600538$0$6392$9b4e6d93@newsspool2.arcor-online.net>
NNTP-Posting-Date: 01 Jun 2007 13:38:32 CEST
NNTP-Posting-Host: 3f3c034c.newsspool2.arcor-online.net
X-Trace: 
 DXC=Skd\?Q7h^]3RLigj];iP=8A9EHlD;3Yc24Fo<]lROoR18kF<OcfhCO;Yl;ZbJ?bd71PCY\c7>ejV8F0a0PcIY8c8Wf[Z^1@a[T1
X-Complaints-To: usenet-abuse@arcor.de
Xref: g2news1.google.com comp.lang.ada:16021
Date: 2007-06-01T13:38:32+02:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

Dmitry A. Kazakov wrote:
> On Thu, 31 May 2007 13:44:40 +0200, Georg Bauhaus wrote:
> 
>>  When they write,
>>   a := a + 1;
>> the may not be thinking about a commutative group of integers,
> 
> It is no matter what they think, it matters what they write.

This seems a contradiction to what you say below, about basing
solutions on technology/science.
OTOH, when we started from LSP as a design principle, we started
from a guiding principle, I think. This means programmers who
do not accidentally write following the principle. So what are
the principles they have actually been following when
producing a solution that works even though the math behind it
is not known/mainstream/acceptable?

> [...]
>> but we might also ignore successful solutions
>> just because
>> (1) they do not usually appear on math radar screens, or 
>> (2) contradict beliefs in known models (see co/contravariance).
> 
> No solution is successful if not based on technological / scientific basis
> which would make "success" reproducible. That's apart from the question of
> measurement of "success".
> 
> We don't talk about consuming programs, but about designing them.


>>> No, the point is that they cannot be mapped (implemented), this is why
>>> mathematics is necessary to describe what is going on, because no machine
>>> would be sufficient for that.
>> But what is actually going on in /dev/random?
> 
> Realization of a random variable.

What is realization in a machine if not an implementation?