**In the eating**

graydon speaks as if a test is a boring type of proof. I disagree that a test is a proof, and here is why. He formalizes the notion that testing some case, is equivalent to generating a proof for that case:

any test can be translated into a proof in a silly logic easily: the proof is simply the trace of your processor executing your program's code on your test's input, and the logic is one in which each machine transition that happened is an axiom. but that proof is boring

But remember that a test can fail to terminate. We are not converting the test to a proof, but the execution trace of the test. And that is an impossible task for tests that do not terminate.

Although it could seem like this is a silly technicality, it is big enough that you should not consider a test itself any kind of proof, unless it comes with a proof of termination. To me what distiguishes a proof from anything else, is that there is a totally routine way of checking if it is valid or not. A process that might fail to terminate, does not qualify as totally routine.