Are you talking about some notion of “consistency” that has nothing to do with logical consistency?
> Additionally your understanding of the specification may be flawed or simply written incorrectly, and this can never be formally analyzed.
The whole point to making a formal specification is reducing the potential for misunderstanding. In fact, the only way to misunderstand a formal specification is to be mathematically incompetent.
---
Reply:
> Yes, the section is called "On Requirements" and the paper is about building programs, not abstract or theoretical computer science/logic.
Yet requirements are logical artifacts.
> do[sic] to a level of randomness and misunderstanding of our natural world,
There's nothing to understand about the natural world. You only need to know what you want the program to do. In other words, you need to consider every possibility, and make up your mind about how you want it to be handled.
> we simply do not have a finite amount of variables to statically analyze against.
wat