(no title)
vignesh_m | 7 years ago
This is typically not very popular as these statements depend a lot on the program, and the representations of programs unlike the halting problem computability statement.
vignesh_m | 7 years ago
This is typically not very popular as these statements depend a lot on the program, and the representations of programs unlike the halting problem computability statement.
lisper|7 years ago
[UPDATE] I want to revise my claim that if we could prove interesting theorems about which programs have decidable halting properties that we could solve the halting problem itself. That's not true, because the word "interesting" is too poorly defined. But what is true is that if we could do this then we could prove theorems that we could not previously prove (that has to be true for any reasonable definition of "interesting"). Furthermore, we could now prove these theorems in a purely mechanistic way with no need for human creativity. By any stretch of the imagination that would be a major breakthrough.
chriswarbo|7 years ago
> Yes, I understand that. And what I'm saying is: you can't do that.
Not sure if it's relevant, but it's certainly possible to define an approximate halting-problem-decider, then figure out what it does and doesn't work for.
For example, a trivial implementation which checks if the given program is equal to `42`, outputs "halts" if it is, outputs "don't know" if it isn't. The space of programs it works for is { `42` }, the space of programs it doesn't work for is `remove(42, enumerateAllPrograms)`