3 ms·
No, what you've observed is the (IIRC the terminology) converse, namely: It is not sufficient merely to test a program; you have to prove it correct too. In a
by a1369209993 4y ago
No, what you've observed is the (IIRC the terminology) converse, namely:
It is not sufficient merely to test a program; you have to prove it correct too.
In addition, it is not sufficient merely to prove a program correct; you have to test it too.
In summary, you have to both prove a program correct, and test it; skipping either will result in buggy garbage.
- joshuamorton 4y agoGrandparent is correct. If you've proven the behavior correct, you don't need to test. The proof is the test. This is usually only true in languages-that-are-proof-assistants (idris). In the cases above, they hadn't actually formally proven the behavior correct.