From: david.brown@hesbynett.no   
      
   On 04/01/2026 22:58, James Kuyper wrote:   
   > On 2026-01-04 08:38, highcrew wrote:   
   > ...   
   >> Not differently from halting problem: sure, it is theoretically   
   >> impossible to understand if a program will terminate,   
   >   
   > That's an incorrect characterization of the halting problem. There are   
   > many programs where it's entirely feasible, and even easy, to determine   
   > whether they will halt. What has been proven is that there must be some   
   > programs that for which it cannnot be done.   
      
   That is also imprecise.  The halting problem is about proving that there   
   is no /single/ algorithm (or equivalently, program) that can determine   
   the halting status of /all/ programs.  It is not about the existence of   
   a program whose halting status cannot be determined - it is that for any   
   systematic method you might use to determine the halting status of   
   programs, there are always programs for which that method won't work.   
      
   In the context of static error checking for runtime UB, this means that   
   no matter how smart a static analyser is, you can always write a program   
   with runtime UB that the analyser won't identify for you.  You can then   
   extend that analyser to cover this new case, but no matter how great you   
   make your analyser, there will always be programs with UB that it can't   
   identify.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)