From 964bb8530b3bf335cc612c0f199cca951120ea19 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Dane Sabo Date: Mon, 31 Mar 2025 08:30:57 -0400 Subject: [PATCH] vault backup: 2025-03-31 08:30:57 --- 9999 Personal/Journal/20250331_Should_I_Continue.md | 10 +++++++++- 1 file changed, 9 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) diff --git a/9999 Personal/Journal/20250331_Should_I_Continue.md b/9999 Personal/Journal/20250331_Should_I_Continue.md index 1eb02e6a..8e3d50d5 100644 --- a/9999 Personal/Journal/20250331_Should_I_Continue.md +++ b/9999 Personal/Journal/20250331_Should_I_Continue.md @@ -25,4 +25,12 @@ doesn't translate into belief into his mission. Formal methods are an intense mathematical pursuit in order to prove 'correctness' of something to something else. Formal methods experts may disagree with that characterization, but ultimately that second 'something' can be a lot of things, such as a model of a -plant, a written specification, or anything that can be logically defined. +plant, a written specification, or anything that can be logically defined. Dan +wants to use formal methods to prove things about physical systems. His idea is +aligned with what Manyu just finished up: can we use formal methods to prove that +certain systems adhere to requirements using formal methods? This is connected +in part to the HARDENS report, which tried to use formal methods tools at several +layers of abstraction to prove that a written requirement can be translated into +a proof for a determined plant design. There is certainly work to be done there. + +But is that work that I want to do?