Re: Unpartial Halt Decider 4.0

Mr Flibble <flibble@red-dwarf.jmc.corp> writes:

On Fri, 18 Apr 2025 17:15:40 -0400, Richard Damon wrote:

And the rules of the game are that deciders must answer in finite time.

>
Your perspective is:
>
Epistemic: knowledge must be actionable, and thus based on finite
computation.
>
Pragmatic: we need results in time, so knowing whether we’re in a loop is
more valuable than being able to analyze an infinite thing in an infinite
way.
>
This is totally reasonable — but my perspective is:
>
Not speaking about physical feasibility. I'm working in the theoretical
realm — just as Turing did.

You are working on a different problem, one that seems related to
the Halting Problem but is not the same thing.  The problem you're
working on seems to be a variant of the Halting Problem with the
hard parts removed or quietly ignored.

Whatever you might come up with will not change the perfectly
valid proof that the Halting Problem *as it's normally defined*
is not solvable.

It's conceivable that you might come up with something interesting or
useful, maybe even both.  But I've seen no evidence of that so far.

--
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com
void Void(void) { Void(); } /* The recursive call of the void */