On 10/10/10 19:36, %u wrote:
== Quote from Norbert Nemec ([email protected])'s article
In language design, the theoretical halting problem actually is often an
argument because the compiler does not know the memory limitation at run
time. The finite memory of the machine can therefore not be used to
reason about a piece of code. For the purpose of the compiler, the
machine has to be assumed to have arbitrarily much (i.e. infinite) memory.
I don't know people in language design, but I suspect they know their stuff and
I
would be surprised to hear that they would think of the theoretical Halting
problem where the practical halting problem as an argument would suffice.
Programs
generally can't index an infinite amount of memory.
Why would they use an argument which rests on an abstract system where they
could
just as easily use an argument based on an actual system.
Basically: because 1GB=infinity for all purposes of logical reasoning.
Anyway, I made this thread because in uni I got the Halting problem explained in
totally the wrong context and would like other people not to make the same wrong
first step.
I know that situation very well: having the big Aha-effect after years
of misunderstanding calls for telling people about it. Actually, I find
it quite interesting to discuss this kind of issues once in a while.
