Newsgroups: comp.theory,comp.lang.scheme
Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!bb3.andrew.cmu.edu!newsfeed.pitt.edu!gatech!newsfeed.internetmci.com!miwok!linex1!linex.com!donham
From: donham@linex.com (Jake Donham)
Subject: Re: halting is weak?
In-Reply-To: barmar@tools.bbnplanet.com's message of 1 Feb 1996 15:16:49 -0500
X-Nntp-Posting-Host: linex.com
Message-ID: <DONHAM.96Feb5153824@linex.linex.com>
Sender: news@linex1.linex.com
Organization: LineX Communications (415) 455-1650
References: <4eorcu$nag@nkosi.well.com> <4er73h$n74@tools.bbnplanet.com>
Distribution: inet
Date: Mon, 5 Feb 1996 23:38:23 GMT
Lines: 13
Xref: glinda.oz.cs.cmu.edu comp.theory:15360 comp.lang.scheme:14986

"Barry" == Barry Margolin <barmar@tools.bbnplanet.com> scrawls:

    Barry> think it's pretty well recognized that a halting program
    Barry> that worked for most real-world computer programs could be
    Barry> written.

You really think so? I can think of whole classes of programs for
which this is clearly not the case. Take for example a program
modelling a chaotic system, which halts if and only if some modelled
variable crosses some threshold. Inferring this kind of emergent
behavior from a relatively simple piece of code would be pretty difficult.

Jake
