Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!seismo!hao!hplabs!sri-unix!PEREIRA@SRI-AI.ARPA
From: PEREIRA@SRI-AI.ARPA@sri-unix.UUCP
Newsgroups: net.ai
Subject: Halting problem discussion
Message-ID: <12399@sri-arpa.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 6-Oct-83 21:57:04 EDT
Article-I.D.: sri-arpa.12399
Posted: Thu Oct  6 21:57:04 1983
Date-Received: Fri, 14-Oct-83 01:18:14 EDT
Lines: 21

This discussion assumes that "human minds" are at least equivalent
to Universal Turing Machines. If they are restricted to computing
smaller classes of recursive functions, the question dissolves.

Sequential computers are idealized as having infinite memory because
that makes it easier to study mathematically asymptotic behavior.  Of
course, we all know that a more accurate idealization of sequential
computers is the finite automaton (for which there is no halting
problem, of course!).

The discussion on this issue seemed to presuppose that "minds" are the
same kind of object as existing (finite!) computing devices. Accepting
this presupposition for a moment (I am agnostic on the matter), the
above argument applies and the discussion is shown to be vacuous.

Thus fall undecidability arguments in psychology and linguistics...

Fernando Pereira

PS. Any silliness about unlimited amounts of external memory
will be profitably avoided.