> Weakening or qualifying any of those could produce a statement I emphatically agree with.
My qualification was meant to be "according to the formal systems definition of the words 'prove', 'correct', etc., which was supposed to be applied to consistent systems; yet Java is inconsistent".
Well, I'd actually say that all languages are consistent, it's only particular interpretations of the encodings that may be inconsistent, but that's another discussion ;)
Ah, yeah, when you say you're proving something I think it's worth it to be specific about what, and extra explicit when it differs from the expectations of the audience. There's a lot of "correctness" as used by... anyone not focused on formal systems that is missed by your usage, I think.
My qualification was meant to be "according to the formal systems definition of the words 'prove', 'correct', etc., which was supposed to be applied to consistent systems; yet Java is inconsistent".
Well, I'd actually say that all languages are consistent, it's only particular interpretations of the encodings that may be inconsistent, but that's another discussion ;)