There is an obvious distinction to be made between computers (which include laptops and iPads) on the one hand and mathematical models on the other hand. Strictly speaking, it is wrong to say that “a computer is a finite state machine.” That's like speaking about a mathematical model as if it coincides with reality. Unfortunately, it is unusual to make these kinds of observations explicit in computer science, as I am doing now and as I have done in my paper entitled `Category Mistakes in Computer Science at Large.'

I'm reading about “the science of deep specification.” This grand research project is led by Andrew Appel and some other big names on the east coast of the USA.

Before discussing several "category mistakes" in computer science in follow-up posts, it is much preferred to first introduce a few categorical distinctions and definitions and to subsequently test these concepts on the writings of computer science's greatests (i.e., the writings of the people I and many others admire the most).

Researchers have the responsibility of making clear the limits of their understanding about technology, including the software that is soon to be deployed in self-driving cars. Just like most people do not want conventional cars with drunken drivers in the vicinity of their beloved ones, I shall give arguments (which complement my previous arguments: here and follow-up here) to eschew self-driving cars as well.

As a safety engineer at Altreonic, specializing in formal verification and hazard & risk analysis, I am currently contributing to the design and implementation of a Software-Controlled Light Electric Vehicle, called Kurt (named after Kurt Goedel). Besides having a driver sit on the Kurt and steer it, the Kurt vehicle can also be sent steering requests over a wireless channel by a remote-control device. Hospitals, factories and cities in Flanders can — and hopefully will — benefit from several Kurt vehicles.