What's funny though is that the reasoning needed to say some sampling is comprehensive....makes it closer fo proofs! AFL — coverage-based fuzzing — was the original innovator here, but imagine an interpreter — code coverage in the interpreter itself isn't so good, you also want to explore the interpreted program!

This is why "is my testing comprehensive?" is actually an open-ended problem that, in the limit, is just as hard as formal verification.

I suspect we're basically going to see a convergence here. Randomized testing can be called "Monte Carlo formal verification" hehe.