[Haskell-cafe] Knight Capital debacle and software correctness

[Jay Sulzberger]

On Sat, 4 Aug 2012, Clark Gaebel <cgaebel at uwaterloo.ca> wrote:

> Yes.

Thank you!

Further, if you want:

   Let us have two types s and t.  Let _|_^s be the_|_ for type s,
   and let _|_^t be the _|_ for type t.

   For which famous equivalences of the Haskell System are these two
   _|_ objects equivalent?

oo--JS.


>
> On Sat, Aug 4, 2012 at 1:47 PM, Jay Sulzberger <jays at panix.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On Sat, 4 Aug 2012, Jake McArthur <jake.mcarthur at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>  I feel like this thread is kind of surreal. Knight Capital's mistake
>>> was to use imperative programming styles? An entire industry is
>>> suffering because they haven't universally applied category theory to
>>> software engineering and live systems? Am I just a victim of a small
>>> troll/joke?
>>>
>>> - Jake
>>>
>>
>> ad application of category theory: No joke.
>>
>> Atul Gawande's book The Checklist Manifesto deals with some of
>> this:
>>
>>   http://us.macmillan.com/**thechecklistmanifesto/**AtulGawande<http://us.macmillan.com/thechecklistmanifesto/AtulGawande>
>>
>> In related news, for every type t of Haskell is it the case that
>> something called "_|_" is an object of the type?
>>
>> oo--JS.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Sat, Aug 4, 2012 at 12:46 PM, Jay Sulzberger <jays at panix.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Sat, 4 Aug 2012, Vasili I. Galchin <vigalchin at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>  Hello Haskell Group,
>>>>>
>>>>>    I work in mainstream software industry.
>>>>>
>>>>>    I am going to make an assumption .... except for Jane Street
>>>>> Capital all/most "Wall Street" software is written in an imperative
>>>>> language.
>>>>>
>>>>>    Assuming this why is Wall Street not awaken to the dangers. As I
>>>>> write, Knight Capital may not survive the weekend.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>
>>>>> Vasili
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I believe this particular mild error was in part due to a failure
>>>> to grasp and apply category theory.  There are several systems here:
>>>>
>>>> 1. The design of the code.
>>>>
>>>> 2. The coding of the code.
>>>>
>>>> 3. The testing of the code.
>>>>
>>>> 4. The live running of the code.
>>>>
>>>> 5. The watcher systems which watch the live running.
>>>>
>>>> If the newspaper reports are to be believed, the watcher systems,
>>>> all of them, failed.  Or there was not even one watcher system
>>>> observing/correcting/halting at the time of running.
>>>>
>>>> Category theory suggests that all of these systems are worthy of
>>>> study, and that these systems have inter-relations, which are
>>>> just as worthy of study.
>>>>
>>>> oo--JS.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ______________________________**_________________
>>>> Haskell-Cafe mailing list
>>>> Haskell-Cafe at haskell.org
>>>> http://www.haskell.org/**mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe<http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>> ______________________________**_________________
>> Haskell-Cafe mailing list
>> Haskell-Cafe at haskell.org
>> http://www.haskell.org/**mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe<http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe>
>>
>>
>