XPost: comp.theory, comp.software-eng   
   From: alex.s.gap@gmail.com   
      
   Just an external observation:   
      
   A lot of tech innovations in software optimization area get discarded   
   from the very beginning because people who work on them perceive the   
   halting problem as a dogma. As result, certain practical things (in code   
   analysis) are not even tried because it's assumed that they are bound by   
   the halting problem.   
      
   In practice, however, the halting problem is rarely a limitation. And   
   even when one hits it, they can safely discard a particular analysis   
   branch by marking it as inconclusive.   
      
   Halting problem for sure can be better framed to not sound as a dogma,   
   at least. In practice, algorithmic inconclusiveness has 0.001   
   probability, not a 100% guarantee as many engineers perceive it.   
      
   On 12/11/2025 12:03 AM, polcott wrote:   
   > On 12/10/2025 4:58 PM, wij wrote:   
   >> On Wed, 2025-12-10 at 16:43 -0600, polcott wrote:   
   >>> When the halting problem requires a halt decider   
   >>> to report on the behavior of a Turing machine   
   >>> this is always a category error.   
   >>>   
   >>> The corrected halting problem requires a Turing   
   >>> machine decider to report in the behavior that   
   >>> its finite string input specifies.   
   >>   
   >> If you honestly admit you are solving POO Problem, everything is fine.   
   >>   
   >   
   > *It has take me 21 years to boil it down to this*   
   >   
   > When the halting problem requires a halt decider   
   > to report on the behavior of a Turing machine this   
   > is always a category error.   
   >   
   > The corrected halting problem requires a Turing   
   > machine decider to report in the behavior that   
   > its finite string input specifies.   
   >   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)