Re: Halting problem undecidable or semidecidable?
- From: Jan de Vos <jdv@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 2 Jun 2005 16:44:17 +0200
In comp.theory, Jym wrote:
> There is a fundamental difference between saying yes and saying no. If you
> considered it in terms of languages, you can tell if a given program
> belongs to the language HALT (after a finite unbounded and unknown time).
> You will *never* be able to tell that a given program *does not* belong to
> HALT (that is belongs to co-HALT).
>
> Semi-decidable is really "halt on 'yes' or run forever", not "halt on 'no'
> or run forever.
>
> Notice that if both a problem and its co-problem are semi-decidable, then
> the problem is decidable : just run 'in parallel' both TMs, one day one of
> the two will answer 'yes' and you'll have your final answer.
I think a good follow-up question, and perhaps even the intended
question, could be: are there problems that are undecidable, and whose
converses are also undecidable (so not semi-decidable).
The problem "given a TM M, decide wether it halts on all possible
inputs", is such a problem: if the answer is yes, you will still have
to check all possible inputs, if the answer is no, you will have to
solve the converse of the halting problem (find a program that does
not halt).
Jan
.
- References:
- Halting problem undecidable or semidecidable?
- From: devriese
- Re: Halting problem undecidable or semidecidable?
- From: Jym
- Halting problem undecidable or semidecidable?
- Prev by Date: Re: ZFC
- Next by Date: Re: F.Y.I. - Revised paper "P=NP: LP Formulation of the TSP"
- Previous by thread: Re: Halting problem undecidable or semidecidable?
- Next by thread: Re: Halting problem undecidable or semidecidable?
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
Loading