4 ms·
Then why not just assume it's true and if something breaks, hey, you might just have disproved it?
by olddustytrail 2y ago
Then why not just assume it's true and if something breaks, hey, you might just have disproved it?
- tekchip 2y ago[flagged]
- aj7 2y agoWhat if an airliner or a spacecraft or a self- driving car or a surgical robot breaks?
- olddustytrail 2y agoThey already do. Was this supposed to be an enlightening question?
- pfdietz 2y agoThe randomized algorithm doesn't need to be perfect, it just needs to present a failure probability << the failure rate from other causes. And it can easily do that, since the failure probability goes down exponentially with the number of iterations of the test.
- dgacmu 2y agoBecause for practical things we have a faster solution that might also be wrong occasionally (randomized testing). There's no benefit to using any of the known deterministic tests if they're not truly deterministic. The speed gap vs randomized is huge.
- olddustytrail 2y agoThen it seems it wouldn't be better to use the deterministic test ever. Just use the randomised test and accept the failure rate.