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

[Nick Tudor]

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 rvs.uni-bielefeld.de>
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 TechFak.Uni-Bielefeld.DE
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.techfak.uni-bielefeld.de/mailman/private/systemsafety/attachments/20150306/c586a1f9/attachment.html>