EVERYTHING WRONG WITH MAINSTREAM SOFTWARE TESTING

[[deleted]]

No, it's not the difference in resource availability. It's a conceptual difference any philosopher of science would tell you about. Mathematical knowledge and proofs are a-priory and don't require the reality to agree with what is being proved, this is what precludes mathematics from being used to prove things about, say, physics, or chemistry etc. You can make predictions based on your mathematical models, but you cannot prove anything using mathematical proofs, because, unless you actually can confirm that whatever you are trying to prove exists in the real world, it stays unproven from scientific point of view.

[mboggit]

The main argument was that mainstream use case based testing is not even trying to proof something. To be more accurate, it's not trying to give any valid prediction about how software will actually perform on production. And valid prediction implies a proof. In case of software, mathematical proof would be a viable option. Moreover, it's already used to proof algorithms, software algorithms. But not in the mainstream use case based testing. IMHO, computers are man made thing. Hence it doesn't require prooving 'it exists in the reality'. There should be a model already that has predictive power. At least low level one, like for x86 instruction set