Re: Yet another Attempt at Disproving the Halting Problem
From: Peter Olcott (olcott_at_worldnet.att.net)
Date: 07/30/04
- Next message: Tim: "Re: Ethical Relativism (Cultural Differences Argument)"
- Previous message: Peter Olcott: "Re: Yet another Attempt at Disproving the Halting Problem"
- In reply to: Rick Decker: "Re: Yet another Attempt at Disproving the Halting Problem"
- Next in thread: David C. Ullrich: "Re: Yet another Attempt at Disproving the Halting Problem"
- Reply: David C. Ullrich: "Re: Yet another Attempt at Disproving the Halting Problem"
- Reply: Kent Paul Dolan: "Re: Yet another Attempt at Disproving the Halting Problem"
- Reply: Kent Paul Dolan: "Re: Yet another Attempt at Disproving the Halting Problem"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Fri, 30 Jul 2004 12:26:48 GMT
"Rick Decker" <rdecker@hamilton.edu> wrote in message news:4109ABDC.1070503@hamilton.edu...
> > So it is always possible for an outside observer to correctly
> > determine whether or not any possible program will halt, or not.
> > Is this correct?
> >
> Not quite. That's not what David said. If you have a program
>
> that happens to halt, then you can verify that: just start it
> and eventually it will halt, after which time you'll know it.
> On the other hand, if you have a program that doesn't halt,
> there will never be a time at which you can assert "this
> doesn't halt." You don't, under the standard model of computation,
> have the luxury of waiting until one second after infinity.
>
> That's the difference between recursive and recursively enumerable.
>
>
> Regards,
>
> Rick "taking careful aim with the M31A6"
>
>
My question was my question. I want to know that answer to my
question, not my question in the context of some other question. It
seems to me that im each and every one of these halting problem
cases, I can see whether or not the program will halt or not, even if
the program itself can not see this.
I can see this because the halting problem can not be constructed to
effect the view of the outside observer. It can't go into any infinte loop,
or an infinte cycle based on the results of analysis that is not available
to it.
Because of this any outside observer can (in theory) solve the Halting
Problem. This is the same idea as the void WillHalt() function. We
don't have to have a void WillHalt() function, void functions are not
available in Turing Machines. We can have a separate memory space.
- Next message: Tim: "Re: Ethical Relativism (Cultural Differences Argument)"
- Previous message: Peter Olcott: "Re: Yet another Attempt at Disproving the Halting Problem"
- In reply to: Rick Decker: "Re: Yet another Attempt at Disproving the Halting Problem"
- Next in thread: David C. Ullrich: "Re: Yet another Attempt at Disproving the Halting Problem"
- Reply: David C. Ullrich: "Re: Yet another Attempt at Disproving the Halting Problem"
- Reply: Kent Paul Dolan: "Re: Yet another Attempt at Disproving the Halting Problem"
- Reply: Kent Paul Dolan: "Re: Yet another Attempt at Disproving the Halting Problem"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|