Read on Twitter
#lazypl @RanjitJhala @johnregehr @michael_w_hicks I’ve been trying to get an intuition on the def of sound and complete. I’ve read post by hicks (2/2). Q:
sound->say smth that you SHOULD NOT be able to: false-positive
complete->say smth you SHOULD be able to: false-negative
sound->say smth that you SHOULD NOT be able to: false-positive
complete->say smth you SHOULD be able to: false-negative
My goal is to distill it down to the simplest yet most concrete thing I can easily conceptualize, which does reduce some of the specifics.
Post by Hicks: http://www.pl-enthusiast.net/2017/10/23/what-is-soundness-in-static-analysis/
Post by Hicks: http://www.pl-enthusiast.net/2017/10/23/what-is-soundness-in-static-analysis/
Let me provide one more clarification. I think I tried to be to concise:
sound: CAN say smt SHOULD NOT be able to
complete: CANNOT say smt SHOUD be able to
sound: CAN say smt SHOULD NOT be able to
complete: CANNOT say smt SHOUD be able to
I might have it backwards?
“Either there will be some true statements that L cannot prove, or else L may “prove” some false statements along with all the true ones.”
That seems to imply the following:
unsound -> false-negative
complete -> false-positive
doesn’t mtch intuition
“Either there will be some true statements that L cannot prove, or else L may “prove” some false statements along with all the true ones.”
That seems to imply the following:
unsound -> false-negative
complete -> false-positive
doesn’t mtch intuition
