Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!wuarchive!uunet!mcsun!ukc!strath-cs!nott-cs!piaggio!anw From: anw@maths.nott.ac.uk (Dr A. N. Walker) Newsgroups: comp.lang.misc Subject: Re: The Halting Problem is _not_ solvable on real com Message-ID: <1991May13.171951.9955@maths.nott.ac.uk> Date: 13 May 91 17:19:51 GMT References: <2990@optima.cs.arizona.edu> <1991May10.155454.2239@maths.nott.ac.uk> <3125@cirrusl.UUCP> Reply-To: anw@maths.nott.ac.uk (Dr A. N. Walker) Organization: Maths Dept., Nott'm Univ., UK. Lines: 37 In article truesdel@nas.nasa.gov (David A. Truesdell) writes: >dhesi%cirrusl@oliveb.ATC.olivetti.com (Rahul Dhesi) writes: >>Suppose jim.c halts when given certain inputs and does not halt when >>given certain other inputs. The halting problem in this case has not >>been correctly defined, since the command line "fred jim.c" does not >>specify the inputs given to jim.c. Quite right, but the distinction is uninteresting, because all interesting [:-)] variants of the halting problem are equally insoluble. E.g., it is generally undecidable whether "jim.c" halts when given *no* input, when given *specified* input, when given *some* input or when given *any* input. In my original submission, I carefully left all this to the reader! >> We we really ought to be saying >> % fred jim.c fred.c > >And therein lies the madness: >The next step is: > > % fred jim.c fred.c jim.c > >Then: > > % fred jim.c fred.c jim.c fred.c > >Then: Then you define "fred" to [attempt to] determine whether its parameter halts or loops *when given itself* as input, and the paradox comes back and bites you again without Rahul's objection. See Minsky, op previously cit, for a full discussion. -- Andy Walker, Maths Dept., Nott'm Univ., UK. anw@maths.nott.ac.uk