Xref: utzoo comp.ai:5482 comp.arch:13112 comp.databases:4594 comp.edu:2887 comp.object:719
Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!uwm.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!usc!rutgers!bpa!tci!kempf
From: kempf@tci.bell-atl.com (Cory Kempf)
Newsgroups: comp.ai,comp.arch,comp.databases,comp.edu,comp.object
Subject: Re^2: Reasons why you don't prove your programs are correct
Message-ID: <548@tci.bell-atl.com>
Date: 11 Jan 90 15:23:12 GMT
References: <25711@cup.portal.com> <1449@krafla.rhi.hi.is> <1990Jan11.015531.20996@world.std.com>
Followup-To: comp.ai
Organization: Technology Concepts, Inc.  Sudbury Mass.
Lines: 19

bzs@world.std.com (Barry Shein) writes:

>Yes, the flap in the early 80's was over automatic program
>verification. It seemed that DOD was considering putting $150M into
>this so the debate became quite bloody.

I should think that the idea would be silly on the face of it... after
all, wouldn't it need to have a subroutine that could solve the
halting problem?  Last time I looked, it was still considered
impossible.  Maybe on the new Cray IV??*

+C

* Have you heard about the new Cray IV?  It can solve an infinate loop
in just 7 seconds!
-- 
Cory Kempf		Technology Concepts	     phone: (508) 443-7311 x341
uucp:	{anywhere}!uunet!tci!kempf, kempf@tci.bell-atl.com
DISCLAIMER: TCI is not responsible for my opinions, nor I for theirs