Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!zephyr.ens.tek.com!uw-beaver!cornell!oravax!daryl
From: daryl@oravax.UUCP (Steven Daryl McCullough)
Newsgroups: comp.ai
Subject: Re: Some thoughts on the Searle controversy
Summary: Final thoughts about interpretations.
Message-ID: <1601@oravax.UUCP>
Date: 17 Jul 90 22:53:56 GMT
References: <1597@oravax.UUCP> <5146@milton.u.washington.edu>
Organization: Odyssey Research Associates, Ithaca NY
Lines: 25

<1598@oravax.UUCP> <5187@milton.u.washington.edu>

In article <5187@milton.u.washington.edu>, forbis@milton.u.washington.edu 
(Gary Forbis) writes:

> One cannot know by the operational semantics alone that the
> program has a bug.  What does it mean for a program to have a bug if the
> program is the syntax and the associated operational semantics?

I agree---for a program to have a "bug" it is necessary to go beyond
the operational semantics and give the purpose of the program.
However there is no reason for there to be only one unique purpose of
the program; for example, a graphics program could be used to teach
children the rudiments of geometry, or it could be used to design
houses, etc. Whether the program is "buggy" depends on the actual
purpose the program is being used for, not the purpose the programmer
intended. (Of course, the programmer only promises that the program is
bug-free for some small number of purposes.)

> Don't ask me to fix any bugs in a program you insist in interpreting 
> in a way other than the programmer intends.

Okay, you're off the hook.

Daryl McCullough