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: 103376,86fd56abf3579c34
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
X-Google-Thread: 10db24,77f71d0bde4c5bb4
X-Google-Attributes: gid10db24,public
From: dewar@cs.nyu.edu (Robert Dewar)
Subject: Re: Problems with proofs
Date: 1995/04/21
Message-ID: <dewar.798438964@gnat>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 101283316
references: <3kaksj$iur@isnews.calpoly.edu> <dewar.798240702@gnat>
 <cppD7BMEw.2ts@netcom.com> <dewar.798390176@gnat> <cppD7D1y1.IA1@netcom.com>
organization: Courant Institute of Mathematical Sciences
newsgroups: comp.lang.ada,comp.edu
Date: 1995-04-21T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

Sorry, Robin, I certainly did not mean to be obnoxious (as you see in the
reply to the note you misquoted, I tried to answer your questions in detail).
I really did misinterpret your original comments on proof of correctness
as rather surprising criticisms from someone aware of the technology, and
it took a while to realize that you were not so familiar with the 
POC technology, and were really in the mode of trying to find out about it,
which is why I tried to enlighten ...