Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!samsung!uunet!decwrl!shelby!neon!pescadero.Stanford.EDU!philip
From: philip@pescadero.Stanford.EDU (Philip Machanick)
Newsgroups: comp.object
Subject: Re: Global program state.
Message-ID: <1991Jan4.191828.2403@Neon.Stanford.EDU>
Date: 4 Jan 91 19:18:28 GMT
References: <330@coatimundi.cs.arizona.edu> <2474@motcsd.csd.mot.com>
Sender: news@Neon.Stanford.EDU (USENET News System)
Reply-To: philip@pescadero.stanford.edu
Organization: Computer Science Department, Stanford University
Lines: 18

In article <2474@motcsd.csd.mot.com>, lance@motcsd.csd.mot.com (lance.norskog) writes:
> No, I don't consider the millions of working programs a counter-example,
> because I don't consider them to work.
> 
> A program doesn't "work" because you (or somebody) thinks it works.  
> A program "works" if it can be mathematically proven to work.  Experience
> and operational time don't count.  This isn't like quantum physics where
> observation decides the matter.  Empirical evidence doesn't enter into it.
> 
> Lance
> 
> Prove the Mac works.  C'mon, I dare you.

Would you be so good as to provide a formal specification of the Mac as
a starting point? Otherwise, we don't know what you're asking us to prove.
-- 
Philip Machanick
philip@pescadero.stanford.edu