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: 103376,6f248223d81c2ffc
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
From: dewar@cs.nyu.edu (Robert Dewar)
Subject: Re: Finalization and Garbage Collection: a hole in the RM?
Date: 1996/09/03
Message-ID: <dewar.841801768@schonberg>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 178336647
references: <mazzanti-0209961050000001@mac-mazz.iei.pi.cnr.it>
organization: Courant Institute of Mathematical Sciences
newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Date: 1996-09-03T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>


Franco said

""Bounded Errors" are not considered by the RM (not from me) cases of
true "unpredictability". A program with bounded errors is not erroneous.
"

Well anyone can use language any way they like, but in the normal English
meaning of the word unpredictable (which is the proper one to be using,
since unpredictable is not  technical term), of course bounded errors
result in unpredictable program execution, in that you cannot predict
what will happen. 

There is a very deliberate distinction drawn in the RM between 
non-deterministic behavior and bounded errors, even though some
formalisms might have difficulties in distinguishing betwee3n them.

The best way to think of bounded errors is as erroneoues situations in which
there
are some bounds on what can happen as a result of the error. It is wrong
to think of bounded errors as simply specifying non-deterministic execution.