Re: [SystemSafety] Software reliability (or whatever you would prefer to call it)

From: Nick Tudor < >
Date: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 10:54:17 +0000


Which brings us neatly back to how confident do you feel..today/tomorrow/next year......(without getting all Dirty Harry :-) ) ?

There are no justifiable measures that can be applied. Period.....

Nick Tudor
Tudor Associates Ltd
Mobile: +44(0)7412 074654
www.tudorassoc.com

*77 Barnards Green Road*
*Malvern*
*Worcestershire*
*WR14 3LR*
*Company No. 07642673*
*VAT No:116495996*

*www.aeronautique-associates.com <http://www.aeronautique-associates.com>*

On 6 March 2015 at 10:46, Peter Bernard Ladkin <ladkin_at_xxxxxx wrote:

>
>
> On 2015-03-06 11:37 , Nick Tudor wrote:
> > The beta testing does not find any errors....according to your example,
> it must be 100% reliable.
>
> We may not conclude, by anyone's reasoning, that the software is 100%
> reliable. We may conclude that
> the software is 100% reliable *to some level of confidence*, or 90%
> reliable *to some higher level
> of confidence*. All being subject to whatever "X% reliable" means - Martyn
> did not use that term to
> describe his example, and neither would I.
>
> PBL
>
> Prof. Peter Bernard Ladkin, Faculty of Technology, University of
> Bielefeld, 33594 Bielefeld, Germany
> Je suis Charlie
> Tel+msg +49 (0)521 880 7319 www.rvs.uni-bielefeld.de
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> The System Safety Mailing List
> systemsafety_at_xxxxxx >



The System Safety Mailing List
systemsafety_at_xxxxxx Received on Fri Mar 06 2015 - 11:54:26 CET

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0 : Sat Apr 20 2019 - 01:17:07 CEST