News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:Neural programmer better than Quicksort by adrianN on Friday July 10, 2020 @04:59AM (#23789523)
Your automatic proof checker guarantees that there is no mistake in the proof. That's the easy part! The real question is who guarantees that your specification is what you actually want?
Re:Neural programmer better than Quicksort by infinity0 on Friday July 10, 2020 @05:48AM (#23789752)
Automatic proof checkers still have bugs in them. However, one nice characteristic is that, since its algorithms are so general, i.e. about the language rather than about the problem you're solving (e.g. sorting), any bugs in the checker are either so common they hit every problem solution and are easily discovered and fixed, or so rare that it affects no real-world problem solutions.
Re:Neural programmer better than Quicksort by adrianN on Friday July 10, 2020 @05:53AM (#23789776)
The kernel of an automatic proof checker is much easier to test and verify than the programs you verify using a proof checker though.
Re:Neural programmer better than Quicksort by chrisandchips on Friday July 10, 2020 @06:49AM (#23790125)
+1 verification tends to be the easy part.
Re:Neural programmer better than Quicksort by infinity0 on Friday July 10, 2020 @10:29AM (#23791776)
Sure, not all bugs are kernel bugs though.