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-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 103376,22c9fbc37d426c0c X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2003-08-06 17:27:04 PST Path: archiver1.google.com!postnews1.google.com!not-for-mail From: aek@vib.usr.pu.ru (Alexander Kopilovitch) Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: F22 Raptor in slashdot.org Date: 6 Aug 2003 17:27:03 -0700 Organization: http://groups.google.com/ Message-ID: References: <3F2EBAE0.5574@mail.ru> NNTP-Posting-Host: 62.152.82.176 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Trace: posting.google.com 1060216024 7740 127.0.0.1 (7 Aug 2003 00:27:04 GMT) X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com NNTP-Posting-Date: 7 Aug 2003 00:27:04 GMT Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:41227 Date: 2003-08-07T00:27:04+00:00 List-Id: tmoran@acm.org wrote: > Programmers tend to be smart and try very hard to be logical and still > have an error rate of x/SLOC. Mathematicians try *really* hard to create > logically correct proofs, yet a published result is still sometimes found > to be incorrect. Is there any reason to believe that decision makers, > managers, military officers, politicians or any other group has a > substantially lower error rate? Generally yes, one may have such a reason: members of the latter group quite often are backed with a staff of aids and/or advisors of various kind. Then, the notion of an error for all 3 metioned groups is different. It may surprise you, but even for mathematicians this is not always simple: for example consider Euler's claim that the sum of all natural numbers is equal to (-1/12). Was that an error? What seems a nonsense in 18th century and clearly an error in 19th century, appeared a brilliant prophecy in 20th century. Well, it is true that such a case is very rare in mathematics; but for decision makers, magagers, politicians and even for military officers this isn't so rare: explicit decision may seem obviously wrong, but its consequences appear surprisingly good - so, was there really an error? Finally, what really matters here is not errors themselves, but excuses for the members of the latter group. Excuses not only for the front-line error-makers, and even not for their staff members, but most surely for their "human programmers" - those who educated them, drilled them and consulted them. Alexander Kopilovitch aek@vib.usr.pu.ru Saint-Petersburg Russia