Let me share this on here cuz it might benefit someone going through hard times in his or her relationship. I was going through terrible times with my partner. I suspected he was cheating and I needed proof of this to back my claims. I couldn’t continue with this. All I wanted was to be sure of what was going on before I make any decision. I don’t make blind conclusions; I always want to see the proof for myself. I took the pain of searching for a professional IT expert who can help me spy and track all communication applications on his phone ( WhatsApp,Text messages, call logs and email). I was able to meet an amazing hacker named Webhubghost (@) gmaiilcom his hack services was professionally executed. All the hack was done remotely. He didn’t need physical access to the phone before it was hacked. Under 6 hours, the hack was done. Between these 6 hours, I was given updates about the progress of the hack work. This gave me rest of mind; it was very easy to trust his work. You can reach out to him at Webhubghost (@) gmaiilcom If you are interested in any of his services which ranges from phone hacking to social media account hacking, he will definitely deliver a perfect and swift service for you. I recommend Ben as the best option now because he is fast and reliable. I promised him to share his reputation across all online platforms for getting this done for me at last cause his services are untraceable and efficient not like those fakers I met previously.
How do we tell truths that might hurt? (1975)
71–74 of 74 posts
Re: How do we tell truths that might hurt? (1975)
#72Need help on how to track and catch a cheating spouse. Write Webhubghost (@) gmailcom for help. He offers other hacking services
Re: How do we tell truths that might hurt? (1975)
#73Earlier quoted context omitted.
> That is clearly wrong if one is willing to take a moment to stop gazing at the wonder of pure mathematics and look at the outside world. There is no notion of "correctness" for the pyramids of Egypt, the dykes of the Netherlands, Milan Cathedral, or the world economy and yet those huge-scale systems all function. Wow, couldn't disagree with this more, at least on your examples of civil engineering (buildings, dikes…
> There are testable, comprehensive physical principles that govern whether any of these engineered products function in their most fundamentally-intended ways. These are statistical engineering tests of the probability of failure under certain conditions. That is not at all what Dijkstra would consider to be "correctness". Dijkstra is talking about mathematical proof. In mathematics, one does not say "1 + 2 = 3 plus…
When we determine if an aircraft trims, or a boat floats, it is not correct to say it is statistical engineering test of the probability of failure. You formalize the properties the system must have in order to not fail, and you use conservation equations to ultimately compute whether or not the system satisfies those properties. Margins are used to account for parameters that have uncertainty attached. All of these elements are subject to symbolic mathematical formalism. One can quite clearly state the inequalities that must be satisfied to be, e.g., controllable.
It's unclear how this would be any different than mathematically formalizing a distributed system, identifying the properties that constitute correctness of operation of that distributed system, and symbolically proving that subject to certain assumptions, the distributed system model does or does not satisfy those properties. This would presumably be consistent with the Dijkstra view of mathematical correctness.
Re: How do we tell truths that might hurt? (1975)
#74Earlier quoted context omitted.
> if you believe that computing cannot scale without correctness. He was wrong about that one thing, and to be fair to him, it's still a little amazing in retrospect, That is clearly wrong if one is willing to take a moment to stop gazing at the wonder of pure mathematics and look at the outside world. There is no notion of "correctness" for the pyramids of Egypt, the dykes of the Netherlands, Milan Cathedral, or the…
> That is clearly wrong if one is willing to take a moment to stop gazing at the wonder of pure mathematics and look at the outside world. There is no notion of "correctness" for the pyramids of Egypt, the dykes of the Netherlands, Milan Cathedral, or the world economy and yet those huge-scale systems all function. Wow, couldn't disagree with this more, at least on your examples of civil engineering (buildings, dikes…
> Correctness in construction is not subjective.
Perhaps, but it's never certain. So things that are "correct" can still be wrong.
Here's how Einstein expressed his disagreement with what you are saying:
> As far as the laws of mathematics are certain, they do not refer to reality, and as far as they refer to reality, they are not certain.
Nothing in physics (or any other science) is certain. All one can do in science (other than mathematics) is disprove. One cannot prove.
To prove you would have to be all knowing. You would have to have taken into account all relevant aspects of all physical characteristics. For example, all known aspects of quantum mechanics, including the uncertainty principle, AND all relevant unknown aspects of quantum mechanics, which is guaranteed to be hit and miss, and can rationally be expected to contain an unknown number of misses that isn't zero.
It's the human propensity to ignore these fundamentals that leads to things like the Tacoma Bridge collapse.[0]
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tacoma_Narrows_Bridge_(1940)