So almost every program is "wrong" then. This is pretty pessimistic. Every glass is empty unless it is 100% full.
I think the better approach is just to not fool ourselves. If a large application works, but has a few bugs, then it's OK to say that it's 90% working (or 10% broken--have your pick).
A proof that has a single exception is wrong, a brige that stays up with a broken rivet is correct
The trick is to recognize when you need one and when you'd rather use the other.
An error free perfect piece of software hat doesn't is useless
I really like how the mathematical part of that phrase is literal, and the programming part is metaphorical.
Needless to say this style was not adopted, and in fact a very very different style that practically guarantees a lot of bugs was used.
So the expectation that programs be perfect seems impossible now, but it was not for Dijkstra considering the style of coding he had in mind.