This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||
|
Since the term "correctness" is pretty general I suppose there are different definitions for it. Even if I in no way dispute the current one it would be nice with a source so that it would be easy to see where it comes from. Liiiii ( talk) 13:58, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
"may lie much deeper" --> extremely vague grammar —Preceding unsigned comment added by 18.202.1.175 ( talk) 21:03, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
Yes, it is bad language but it is also wrong. Proving partial correctness is as difficult as solving the halting problem. I'm not a regular Wikipedia editor, but if there is anyone out there who reads this and cares about accuracy I suggest that you drop that sentence. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.238.11.75 ( talk) 08:16, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
Hmm - doesn't the bit about Curry-Howard depend a bit on which constructive logic? At the lower levels, you just get some sort of type-checking ... -- Charles Matthews 15:51, 18 Apr 2004 (UTC)
There have been a number of reasonably successful program proving systems, and they should be discussed. These include, at least
All of these are based on the Nelson-Oppen complete decision procedure approach. That whole line of work needs to be discussed. All of the systems listed can be found in Google.
Program proving probably should be under "program verification" (currently a stub) and some of the content from "formal verification" should be moved there. Then, "correctness" and "formal verification" can be merged. I'll start on this in March if no one objects.
-- John Nagle
Can somebody please set up a redirect from Software correctness? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.247.174.63 ( talk) 19:09, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Correctness (computer science). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 09:49, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||
|
Since the term "correctness" is pretty general I suppose there are different definitions for it. Even if I in no way dispute the current one it would be nice with a source so that it would be easy to see where it comes from. Liiiii ( talk) 13:58, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
"may lie much deeper" --> extremely vague grammar —Preceding unsigned comment added by 18.202.1.175 ( talk) 21:03, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
Yes, it is bad language but it is also wrong. Proving partial correctness is as difficult as solving the halting problem. I'm not a regular Wikipedia editor, but if there is anyone out there who reads this and cares about accuracy I suggest that you drop that sentence. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.238.11.75 ( talk) 08:16, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
Hmm - doesn't the bit about Curry-Howard depend a bit on which constructive logic? At the lower levels, you just get some sort of type-checking ... -- Charles Matthews 15:51, 18 Apr 2004 (UTC)
There have been a number of reasonably successful program proving systems, and they should be discussed. These include, at least
All of these are based on the Nelson-Oppen complete decision procedure approach. That whole line of work needs to be discussed. All of the systems listed can be found in Google.
Program proving probably should be under "program verification" (currently a stub) and some of the content from "formal verification" should be moved there. Then, "correctness" and "formal verification" can be merged. I'll start on this in March if no one objects.
-- John Nagle
Can somebody please set up a redirect from Software correctness? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.247.174.63 ( talk) 19:09, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Correctness (computer science). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 09:49, 13 August 2017 (UTC)