> Are you talking about some notion of “consistency” that has nothing to do with logical consistency?
Yes, the section is called "On Requirements" and the paper is about building programs, not abstract or theoretical computer science/logic.
> The whole point to making a formal specification is reducing the potential for misunderstanding. In fact, the only way to misunderstand a formal specification is to be mathematically incompetent.
I suppose we're talking about the semantics of the word formal, as well as the level of granularity one can hope to achieve over a specific problem domain. While I have no doubt that all processes can and will eventually be reduced into an algebraic function, currently, do to a level of randomness and misunderstanding of our natural world, we simply do not have a finite amount of variables to statically analyze against.
Yes, the section is called "On Requirements" and the paper is about building programs, not abstract or theoretical computer science/logic.
> The whole point to making a formal specification is reducing the potential for misunderstanding. In fact, the only way to misunderstand a formal specification is to be mathematically incompetent.
I suppose we're talking about the semantics of the word formal, as well as the level of granularity one can hope to achieve over a specific problem domain. While I have no doubt that all processes can and will eventually be reduced into an algebraic function, currently, do to a level of randomness and misunderstanding of our natural world, we simply do not have a finite amount of variables to statically analyze against.