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

Tue Mar 10 16:34:44 CET 2015

"But no - I've got no intention of writing papers about quantum

reliability... :-)"

David, please don't give up so easily. We can break new ground :)

I propose a paper on "Quantum superposition in C++"

"The paper discusses a scenario in which code is alive and dead at the same time, a state henceforth known as a quantum code superposition. Inspired by a cartoon of Schrödinger' cats, the authors have dreamt up a case of extreme indeterminism that will confuse even the most experienced tester ...", you are welcome to coauthor :)

Best regards

Yiannis

--

Yiannis Papadopoulos -

http://www2.hull.ac.uk/science/computer_science/our_staff/staff_profiles/yiannis_papadopoulos.aspx

>-----Original Message-----
From: David Haworth [mailto:david.haworth at elektrobit.com]
Sent: Tuesday, March 10, 2015 1:12 PM
To: Yiannis I Papadopoulos
Cc: David Haworth; Nick Tudor; systemsafety at lists.techfak.uni-bielefeld.de
Subject: Re: [SystemSafety] Software reliability (or whatever you would prefer to call it)

Hi Yiannis,

I just wanted to point out that quantum effects can

introduce randomness into the real (macroscopic) world.

By design (as in the case of ERNIE) or unintentionally

(as in the spurious FAIL indications of real-world

measuring devices).

For information (I've just done a web search to jog my memory)

the devices in question were PDRM82 dose-rate meters, produced

in great quantities by Plessey for the British government during

the 1980s.

But no - I've got no intention of writing papers about quantum

reliability. Though I have to admit that the term has a certain

ring to it :-)

BTW you won't see an IF mutate into a FOR, because that's

a conceptual thing. However, you might see a load into register

R7 (say) mutate into a load into register R5 because of a bit-flip

in the instruction as it gets transferred from memory to the

instruction pipeline, and the result could be just as devastating.

I have seen this happen in real-world hardware. The cause in

this case was incorrect programming of a chip-select unit -

we needed to add an extra wait state *after* reading from the

hardware device in question to give it time to get off

the bus. Without that extra wait state it sometimes interfered

with a later instruction fetch. It was totally deterministic

on any given build of the software. But change a few instructions

somewhere the the effect would pop up somewhere else.

If the trend in miniaturisation of processing elements continues,

there may well be the possibility of a quantum mechanism causing

a transient bit flip like this. Actually, there is a possibility

even now, but the likelihood is so small as to be negligible (or

at least hiding behind much bigger effects such as electrical or

electromagnetic interference).

Dave

On 2015-03-10 12:14:40 +0000, Yiannis I Papadopoulos wrote:

> Hi David! Thanks for the amusing post :)

>

> "I hate to destroy your comfortable illusion, but a long time ago

> (in a galaxy quite close to where you live) the ERNIE machine that

> decided who won the weekly and monthly premium bond draw in the UK

> used the random noise in a particular kind of diode as the source for

> the random numbers. I believe the noise is a quantum effect."

>

> Does this quantum effect show that there is "randomness" in the world? If quantum phenomena caused real randomness then the world would be fairly unpredictable. But still, the laws of physics are pretty deterministic and the macro-world is pretty predictable.

>

> On a more mundane level, unfortunately I have not seen yet much "real randomness" when I program, analyse, test and verify code. For example I have never seen an "if" mutating into a "for" or a stamement that is either an "if" or a "for"  depending on the observer :). Admittedly it would have been fun, but never happened nevertheless.

>

> In any case, if you  really believe that quantum mechanics introduces real randomness in the macrocosm, and has impact on this discussion, then I am really looking forward to reading your paper about how to incorporate quantum mechanics in the assessment and verification of systems and software (happy to coauthor too :)

>

> Thanks and have a good day! :)

>

> Yiannis

>

> -----Original Message-----

> From: David Haworth [mailto:david.haworth at elektrobit.com]

> Sent: Tuesday, March 10, 2015 11:42 AM

> To: Yiannis I Papadopoulos

> Cc: Nick Tudor; systemsafety at lists.techfak.uni-bielefeld.de<mailto:systemsafety at lists.techfak.uni-bielefeld.de>

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

>

> Hi Yiannis,

>

> >    (... no Heisenberg please ... if quantum mechanics introduced any

> >    real randomness in the world as we know it, we would be in real trouble

> >    :)

>

> I hate to destroy your comfortable illusion, but a long time ago

> (in a galaxy quite close to where you live) the ERNIE machine that

> decided who won the weekly and monthly premium bond draw in the UK

> used the random noise in a particular kind of diode as the source for

> the random numbers. I believe the noise is a quantum effect.

>

> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Premium_Bond#ERNIE

> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hardware_random_number_generator

>

> I also spent many "happy" hours analysing why a range of radiation

> monitors produced by the company I then worked for reported that

> they had failed occasionally. The answer was that the tiny scrap

> of radioactive material that was built into the Geiger tube in

> the equipment, that was intended to provide at least one measurable

> decay event every 3 seconds or so would in reality sometimes not

> produce anything for 10 seconds or more. What's more, the calculations

> that we made and the simulations that we ran correlated with the observed

> phenomenon remarkably accurately.

>

> So in some sense, the randomness introduced by quantum mechanics had a

> direct effect on my own experience. And quite likely on all those who

> have won prizes in the premium bond draw :-)

>

> Dave

>

> On 2015-03-10 10:37:33 +0000, Yiannis I Papadopoulos wrote:

> >    " Software essentially boils down to a string of one's and nought's.

> >    Given the same inputs (and that always comes from the chaotic

> >    environment) then the output will always be the same.  It therefore

> >    makes no sense to talk about 'software reliability' "

> >

> >

> >    The premise is true but does the conclusion follow?

> >

> >

> >    Take the example of throwing a dice.

> >

> >

> >    If you know everything about the dice and its environment and apply the

> >    laws of physics you can determine the outcome. You can be god,

> >    replicate the exact conditions and you will get the same outcome every

> >    time (... no Heisenberg please ... if quantum mechanics introduced any

> >    real randomness in the world as we know it, we would be in real trouble

> >    :)

> >

> >

> >    So, what is the purpose then of talking about randomness,  probability

> >    and statistics to describe such phenomena? I think the answer is that

> >    it is often the best, sometimes the only way, to reason about complex

> >    deterministic processes. It is done all the time in science, why not in

> >    software?

> >

> >

> >    --

> >

> >    Yiannis Papadopoulos

> >

> >    http://www2.hull.ac.uk/science/computer_science/our_staff/staff_profile

> >    s/yiannis_papadopoulos.aspx

>

> > **************************************************

> > To view the terms under which this email is

> > distributed, please go to

> > http://www2.hull.ac.uk/legal/disclaimer.aspx

> > **************************************************

>

> > _______________________________________________

> > The System Safety Mailing List

> > systemsafety at TechFak.Uni-Bielefeld.DE<mailto:systemsafety at TechFak.Uni-Bielefeld.DE>

>

>

> --

> David Haworth B.Sc.(Hons.), OS Kernel Developer    david.haworth at elektrobit.com<mailto:david.haworth at elektrobit.com>

> Tel: +49 9131 7701-6154     Fax: -6333                  Keys: keyserver.pgp.com

> Elektrobit Automotive GmbH           Am Wolfsmantel 46, 91058 Erlangen, Germany

> Geschäftsführer: Alexander Kocher, Gregor Zink       Amtsgericht Fürth HRB 4886

> **************************************************

> To view the terms under which this email is

> distributed, please go to

> http://www2.hull.ac.uk/legal/disclaimer.aspx

> **************************************************

--

David Haworth B.Sc.(Hons.), OS Kernel Developer    david.haworth at elektrobit.com<mailto:david.haworth at elektrobit.com>

Tel: +49 9131 7701-6154     Fax: -6333                  Keys: keyserver.pgp.com

Elektrobit Automotive GmbH           Am Wolfsmantel 46, 91058 Erlangen, Germany

Geschäftsführer: Alexander Kocher, Gregor Zink       Amtsgericht Fürth HRB 4886
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.techfak.uni-bielefeld.de/mailman/private/systemsafety/attachments/20150310/8720379c/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
**************************************************
To view the terms under which this email is 
distributed, please go to 
http://www2.hull.ac.uk/legal/disclaimer.aspx
**************************************************