I think the issues were more to do with whether or not the formal model corresponded to the manufactured hardware. My understanding is that the proof itself was logically fine.
Michael > On 17 Jul 2015, at 00:03, Phil Stracchino <[email protected]> wrote: > >> On 07/16/15 11:13, Phil Stracchino wrote: >> For that matter, there is only one PROCESSOR that has ever been formally >> proven correct. > > (And in fact, if we're really going to get picky, questions have been > raised about the validity and correctness of the proof.) > > > -- > Phil Stracchino > Babylon Communications > [email protected] > [email protected] > Landline: 603.293.8485 > > _______________________________________________ > enigmail-users mailing list > [email protected] > To unsubscribe or make changes to your subscription click here: > https://admin.hostpoint.ch/mailman/listinfo/enigmail-users_enigmail.net ________________________________ The information in this e-mail may be confidential and subject to legal professional privilege and/or copyright. National ICT Australia Limited accepts no liability for any damage caused by this email or its attachments. _______________________________________________ enigmail-users mailing list [email protected] To unsubscribe or make changes to your subscription click here: https://admin.hostpoint.ch/mailman/listinfo/enigmail-users_enigmail.net
