"Beware of bugs in the above code; I have only proved it correct, not tried it." -- Donald Knuth.
-
-
-
Some people probably think that was just a throw-away line by Knuth, but it's actually a signal pointing to his deep, lifelong investigation into the interplay of declarative and imperative mathematics.
Kraj razgovora
Novi razgovor -
-
-
Is a buggy proof, followed by a fixed proof, a real failure? Would we be better off without proofs at all? I agree rigor can be improved, I agree the role of provable security is often exaggerated, but the positive impact doesn’t seem to warrant a hostile attitude.
Hvala. Twitter će to iskoristiti za poboljšanje vaše vremenske crte. PoništiPoništi
-
-
-
It is interesting to note that Koblitz and Menezes forgot to mention their own contribution to the history of "fallacious proofs", see https://eprint.iacr.org/2014/578
- Još 1 odgovor
Novi razgovor -
-
-
People writing complicated software in LaTeX sometimes miss bugs.
- Još 2 druga odgovora
Novi razgovor -
-
-
You forgot to quote
@FiloSottile 's tweetHvala. Twitter će to iskoristiti za poboljšanje vaše vremenske crte. PoništiPoništi
-
-
-
Too often, the folks writing proofs are not computer scientists. Dependent type theories and category theories have real programming language implementations, so using them to formalize systems is ideal. Langs like Idris are part of the future, IMHO.
Hvala. Twitter će to iskoristiti za poboljšanje vaše vremenske crte. PoništiPoništi
-
-
-
Thanks for sharing this, looks great.
Hvala. Twitter će to iskoristiti za poboljšanje vaše vremenske crte. PoništiPoništi
-
Čini se da učitavanje traje već neko vrijeme.
Twitter je možda preopterećen ili ima kratkotrajnih poteškoća u radu. Pokušajte ponovno ili potražite dodatne informacije u odjeljku Status Twittera.