[SystemSafety] Logic

Sun Feb 16 14:52:36 CET 2014

Hi Peter,

My vision is (as usual) even more pessimistic. What you write is not pertinent only for computer sciences but also for system engineering. We have guys here coming from top ranking engineering school who would never pass your logic test.

I am currently involved in a relatively critical system design. It happens that most engineers don't understand that some kind of logical reasoning is necessary to switch from a given specification to a more refined one. It seems incredible to them that a refined specification (call it model) would not end automatically in something satisfying the higher level requirements. I have to use very specific, primary school level, analogies to have them discover the point ! And this is at Master + 2 years level. When you know that most automation engineers are Bachelor level in France, you can imagine how far we are from these preoccupations.

Bertrand Ricque
Program Manager
Optronics and Defence Division
Sights Program
Mob : +33 6 87 47 84 64
Tel : +33 1 59 11 96 82
Bertrand.ricque at sagem.com

-----Original Message-----
From: systemsafety-bounces at lists.techfak.uni-bielefeld.de [mailto:systemsafety-bounces at lists.techfak.uni-bielefeld.de] On Behalf Of Peter Bernard Ladkin
Sent: Saturday, February 15, 2014 11:53 AM
To: systemsafety at techfak.uni-bielefeld.de
Subject: [SystemSafety] Logic

Folks,

we have a local issue in our faculty which I think is of more general importance and would like to solicit views, evidence and so forth. This is about curricula; I don't know how many people here are interested in that at the undergrad level, and crave indulgence from those who don't.

To put the last paragraph first, I would like to gather opinions on the necessity of some skills. I would argue that programming dependable systems, and dependable-software engineering in general, requires some facility with formal description languages (FDLs). FDLs are necessary for requirements specification and analysis, and they are also necessary for the refinement steps that occur between requirements and code, as well as for any kind of static analysis of code. They are necessary for validating compilers. Classical proposition and predicate logics count amongst the most common and basic FDLs; a skill in expressing some kinds of assertions in predicate logic has often been regarded as necessary for a basic informatics education. I would think some understanding of how FDLs work is essential for any work in dependable engineering of SW. Do people agree? If so, could you please give me some evidence?

The context is this.

I am on various mailing lists for announcements of conferences and academic research jobs (PhDs and Post-docs). Almost all of the stuff I see requires some to considerable expertise in formal methods (FM). Indeed, I would say that support for FM-related research has exploded in the last ten years.
But our students don't have enough experience of FM in their degree courses to stand much of a chance applying for such jobs. Even if they take all I regularly offer, it is barely enough.

We have four undergraduate degree programs, all "hyphen-informatics" in which informatics is studied along with an application domain: informatics in natural sciences (NWI); bioinformatics and genomics (BG); "cognitive informatics" (KOI); and media informatics (MI). (The last one of these is aimed primarily at new-media artists - selection is through an artistic portfolio.)

We used to have degree programs based on the German Diplom system (equivalent to a Master's with thesis, but as a first degree) but have switched in the last decade to (Germany's idea of) Bachelor's/Master's combination.

The course in Theoretical Informatics (TheoInf) used to be compulsory (for all except media informatics), and comprised the usual automata theory, Chomsky-hierarchy languages and logic. We agreed a few years ago to separate logic from the other two subjects and have two courses. This decision was based partly on the fact that I had developed an applied-logic module (= two courses in two semesters) which did rather more than the somewhat cursory nod (from my point of view) it got in the combined course.

But something odd happened that nobody I asked has been able to explain. TheoInf is compulsory for NWI and KOI, as it should be. But Applied Logic did not become compulsory for anyone. So, essentially, logic became an elective.

Boolean logic is taught in the Technical Informatics module, which is compulsory for NWI and KOI (the other two get a brief survey of TechInf), which does the usual Karnaugh-diagram and Quine-McCluskey minimisation stuff. But there is the question whether people who study Boolean logic for TechInf can apply what they learn to Propositional Logic in the form of language rather than algebra.

Logic is also briefly, very cursorily, mentioned in the Mathematics modules required for NWI and KOI, which are taught by the Maths Department, but not to the extent that any student feels they can use it.

My indications from a decade ago were that our students couldn't, very well (I didn't teach TheoInf, but I used to examine for it. I would give an exam question - "what does (A AND B OR C) mean, where A,B and C are propositions". The answer is twofold: that the meaning of a statement in propositional logic is given by its truth table; and further that there are two possible truth tables corresponding to this statement. Less than half could give the first answer, and only about one in five would notice the ambiguity. This despite asking the *same question* for years and years). This is why I developed my Applied Logic course, to get people familiar with the basics of inference
(syntax) and meaning (semantics). The first semester is coextensive with, say, Huth and Ryan Section 1.2.

One of my Bachelor's students (that is, a student who has done a number of electives which my group offers, and has subsequently tutored the courses) applied to do a Master's at another German university (the Technical University of Braunschweig) and was told he didn't appear to have enough logic. He told them he was currently taking my Applied Logic course, as well as another course in logic in the Philosophy department, and he was then provisionally admitted (he did end up staying with us, though).

I suggested to my colleagues that we didn't appear to be teaching all of the basic material which other informatics people would expect from people with a degree in Informatics, and that it would be a good idea at least to inform students of what electives they might need in addition to compulsory material in order pursue a Master's in Informatics elsewhere. We had some discussion of that.

At least some colleagues seem to think that we offer broadly what the professional society (GI) recommends in curricula. That may formally be so, but I would say only formally. It also doesn't address the issue of what kind of skill with FDLs people with a university degree in informatics could be expected to have.

I looked at the curricula of three top-20 universities in the UK: Oxford, Cambridge and Imperial College London. All of them have substantial logic in their curricula for any of the degree courses.
(Oxford seems to have logic in about half its electives as well!).

I have started to contact people who are likely to feel similarly about the importance of skills with FDLs and in particular with applied logic in informatics as I do. I'd be grateful for any material - stories, opinions, observations about curricula, about software engineering practice, and so forth - which you may be able to convey.

PBL

Prof. Peter Bernard Ladkin, Faculty of Technology, University of Bielefeld, 33594 Bielefeld, Germany
Tel+msg +49 (0)521 880 7319  www.rvs.uni-bielefeld.de

_______________________________________________
The System Safety Mailing List
systemsafety at TechFak.Uni-Bielefeld.DE
#
" Ce courriel et les documents qui lui sont joints peuvent contenir des informations confidentielles, être soumis aux règlementations relatives au contrôle des exportations ou ayant un caractère privé. S'ils ne vous sont pas destinés, nous vous signalons qu'il est strictement interdit de les divulguer, de les reproduire ou d'en utiliser de quelque manière que ce soit le contenu. Toute exportation ou réexportation non autorisée est interdite Si ce message vous a été transmis par erreur, merci d'en informer l'expéditeur et de supprimer immédiatement de votre système informatique ce courriel ainsi que tous les documents qui y sont attachés."
******
" This e-mail and any attached documents may contain confidential or proprietary information and may be subject to export control laws and regulations. If you are not the intended recipient, you are notified that any dissemination, copying of this e-mail and any attachments thereto or use of their contents by any means whatsoever is strictly prohibited. Unauthorized export or re-export is prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error, please advise the sender immediately and delete this e-mail and all attached documents from your computer system."
#