Re: lack of testability definition

Le Lundi, 3 nove 2003, à 19:38 America/Montreal, Alex Rousskov a écrit :
> Is your own statement that "everything is testable without ambiguity"
> is testable without ambiguity? :-)

hehe

> I am not a physics guru, but my understanding is that the base
> principles of quantum mechanics are still in dispute and will be so at
> least until a Grand Unified Theory is completed.

hehe :) exactly the problem. You confirm what I'm saying.
Physics laws are models... there's nothing true per se. As soon you 
have decided of a framework, your tests have to be verifiable in this 
model, when your model is not anymore good because too many cases are 
out of the model, you have to change the model.

It doesn't mean it was not testable. It just means the model is not 
good enough.

It's why we moved from
	Galilean model
	Newton
	Simple relativity
	General relativity

for gravity and mechanics.

A test which is done in the Newton model is still good if it's in the 
condition of the newton environment. For example, An apple falling from 
a tree. You can make as much tests as you want in this model in this 
environment, if the test is good, the law will be seen "true".

A test is made in a framework and is always true in this framework. If 
it's not the test is not good or the framework is not good, but you 
must not have tests which are unpredictable. Because you can't do 
science ;)


> I agree. This example does not illustrate the problem though.
> Consider this instead: Is the following statement from a spec
> testable?
>
> 	"When given input X, the agent MUST always respond with Y?"
>
> If yes, please provide a procedure to establish compliance of a given
> agent implementation.

yes if the result Y is unpredictable, you just proved the test 
assertion is not true ;) and so you have to reformulate it. If you 
can't it means that the framework is not good.

Received on Monday, 3 November 2003 20:21:12 UTC