== Quote from Norbert Nemec ([email protected])'s article > 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. No no no! :D If you'd left out logical it would have been just fine :D I'm not even going to give ridiculous logical proof with this assumption.. no I will not.. .. assume inf is 1GB.. No! ..
> > 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.
