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=-1.8 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,FREEMAIL_FROM, PLING_QUERY autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Thread: 103376,b6d862eabdeb1fc4 X-Google-NewGroupId: yes X-Google-Attributes: gida07f3367d7,domainid0,public,usenet X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,UTF8 Path: g2news2.google.com!news3.google.com!proxad.net!feeder1-2.proxad.net!usenet-fr.net!gegeweb.org!aioe.org!not-for-mail From: =?utf-8?Q?Yannick_Duch=C3=AAne_=28Hibou57?= =?utf-8?Q?=29?= Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: Ada noob here! Is Ada widely used? Date: Fri, 04 Jun 2010 14:59:59 +0200 Organization: Ada At Home Message-ID: References: <0e88de66-128c-48fd-9b9f-fdb4357f318a@z17g2000vbd.googlegroups.com> <22aKn.4575$Z6.3399@edtnps82> <8d5dbf6e-81fe-4419-aaad-118921a47b4a@q23g2000vba.googlegroups.com> <82ocg5r7w5.fsf@stephe-leake.org> <18iz0ye51c3rk$.1wc5rwelax6hr$.dlg@40tude.net> <82wrusagcz.fsf@stephe-leake.org> <82fx1317yh.fsf@stephe-leake.org> <1cic9uxywxe5q$.1txc2yridbly9.dlg@40tude.net> <2i3mv8sgbcwa.mgzppkof7iaj.dlg@40tude.net> NNTP-Posting-Host: gPTBNfhtfsEpv8wDIvwlLw.user.speranza.aioe.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed; delsp=yes Content-Transfer-Encoding: Quoted-Printable X-Complaints-To: abuse@aioe.org X-Notice: Filtered by postfilter v. 0.8.2 User-Agent: Opera Mail/10.53 (Win32) Xref: g2news2.google.com comp.lang.ada:12249 Date: 2010-06-04T14:59:59+02:00 List-Id: Le Fri, 04 Jun 2010 14:23:07 +0200, Dmitry A. Kazakov = a =C3=A9crit: > If you mean mathematical statistics, then its applicability depends on= > strict conditions. Prior these established the statistics (samples) of= > failures is just a collection of anecdotes... As usual, with mathematics and logic, interpretation is an issue. The = interpretation here should be correlation (I am not arguing this is true= = that software is less or more reliable than mechanical parts, as I don't= = have needed materials to assert anything about it). Statistics are = intermediate results, and intermediate result are not always = interpretable, ok, you're right. > If you mean "lies, damned lies, and statistics" then yes. (Did you kno= w > that 90% of people died in car accidents had eaten cucumbers shortly = > before > the accident? (:-)) This is not even an implication, so it is unlikely this will legitimatel= y = argue for a correlation. Here is why: =E2=80=9CHad eaten cucumbers=E2=80= =9D may be an = antecedent of many other things, so this would not be a meaningful = correlation, and moreover =E2=80=9CHad eaten cucumbers=E2=80=9D may be a= n antecedent of = =E2=80=9Caccident occurred=E2=80=9D as much as =E2=80=9Cno accident occu= rred at all=E2=80=9D, so this does = not justify an implication or correlation. Well, I am relying on an = implicit here, because what is exactly missing, in your example, would = exactly be statistics about =E2=80=9CHad eaten cucumbers=E2=80=9D when =E2= =80=9Cno accident = occurred at all=E2=80=9D. Conclusion : one statistic is not relevant alo= ne, it = needs others, forming a good coverage of different cases (logic needs it= s = food). I was wrong just saying =E2=80=9Cstatistics=E2=80=9D, so the reformulati= on I suggest is = =E2=80=9Cthis does not invalidate any noticed correlation=E2=80=9D (stat= istics being just = a tool there, to help see correlation, and multiple statistics are neede= d = for various configurations). I suppose I understand what you mean and was just wrong with my wordings= . Cheers -- = There is even better than a pragma Assert: a SPARK --# check. --# check C and WhoKnowWhat and YouKnowWho; --# assert Ada; -- i.e. forget about previous premises which leads to conclusion -- and start with new conclusion as premise.