4 ms·
naive applications of this would lead you to believe no knowledge is possible, and that progress is not meaningful when liveness can’t be guaranteed. it’s all
by cmrx64 16d ago
naive applications of this would lead you to believe no knowledge is possible, and that progress is not meaningful when liveness can’t be guaranteed.
it’s all rubbish, grandparent is a small mind who can’t figure out how it’s a step up from nothing.
- svieira 16d agoI wouldn't say it's all rubbish - it's very easy for someone new to theorem proving to presume the equivalent of "strong typing will eliminate the possibility of errors", but the more correct understanding is "strong typing will reduce the number of things you have to keep in your head at any one time thus reducing the possibility of errors".
- nottorp 16d agoThe thing with ubuntu's rust coreutils is that they, for example, crash when told to recurse because they use actual recursive calls to go into subdirs and run out of stack space if the structure is big enough. What formal correctness proof will detect that?
- cmrx64 16d agoany of the quite many cost-aware logical frameworks. it’s SO. easy. to. do. you fools are just willfully ignorant on how to represent reasoning, despite alleging yourselves to be computer scientists?