The Louis was refitted in the 80's for promoting Canadian sovereignty in territorial waters claimed by Canada. So I'm fairly certain she can, but I don't know if she has. And the Louis was definatly a little larger then the Danish ships that made the same voyage.
Also, I think she has a sister ship, the CCGS Henry Larsen, which, while smaller, still makes regular summer voyages to the north (though normally not that far).
"if a program has n 'parts' and each part has "probability of correctness" c, then the probability that the while program whill work is c^n"
so (am I reading this right) while a program may be large, once decomposed into its basic parts, you can show prob. of correctness of each part, thus allowing you to work out the correctness of the whole?
And if you can decomposed each, can't you make each the probability of correctness 1? (completly correct?)
Again, I'm arguing that its not possible in a realistic time frame.
Its amusing that there is a mathematical way to prove that a piece of code (or any program) has absolutly no errors.
However, it takes exponential time to do.
So the code for, ex, msword, would take many many years.
(factoring two large prime numbers falls into the same group... which, apparently, means that if you can factor two large prime numbers in reasonable time, then there exists a method to fix in reasonable time)
*shrugs*
Slashdot Mirror
http://www.ccg-gcc.gc.ca/vessels-navires/details_e .asp?id=A-1
The Louis was refitted in the 80's for promoting Canadian sovereignty in territorial waters claimed by Canada. So I'm fairly certain she can, but I don't know if she has. And the Louis was definatly a little larger then the Danish ships that made the same voyage.
Also, I think she has a sister ship, the CCGS Henry Larsen, which, while smaller, still makes regular summer voyages to the north (though normally not that far).
Below links to a phone number (forgive the long link, GEDS is evil sometimes) for anyone interested in a more involved discussion of the matter.
3 dS cherrer%5c%2c%20Helene%2cou%3dCH-PC%2cou%3dMIN-MIN %2cou%3dHoC-CdC%2co%3dGC%2cc%3dCA
http://direct.srv.gc.ca/cgi-bin/direct500/REcn%
Umm...
shouldn't that be
8^35?
= 2,251,875,390,625
and since 100 Million is 100,000,000
The odds are actually
1 in 22,518
"if a program has n 'parts' and each part has "probability of correctness" c, then the probability that the while program whill work is c^n" so (am I reading this right) while a program may be large, once decomposed into its basic parts, you can show prob. of correctness of each part, thus allowing you to work out the correctness of the whole? And if you can decomposed each, can't you make each the probability of correctness 1? (completly correct?) Again, I'm arguing that its not possible in a realistic time frame.
Its amusing that there is a mathematical way to prove that a piece of code (or any program) has absolutly no errors. However, it takes exponential time to do. So the code for, ex, msword, would take many many years. (factoring two large prime numbers falls into the same group... which, apparently, means that if you can factor two large prime numbers in reasonable time, then there exists a method to fix in reasonable time) *shrugs*