You're looking at Less Wrong's discussion board. This includes all posts, including those that haven't been promoted to the front page yet. For more information, see About Less Wrong.

dlthomas comments on What independence between ZFC and P vs NP would imply - Less Wrong Discussion

1 Post author: alexflint 08 December 2011 02:30PM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Comments (62)

You are viewing a single comment's thread. Show more comments above.

Comment author: dlthomas 08 December 2011 07:43:19PM *  0 points [-]

An observation of a loop, a portion of the tape encoding a value that's decreasing each loop, and a check for it falling below a threshold that would lead to a halt?

Comment author: gwern 08 December 2011 08:09:44PM 1 point [-]

That would only work for some turing machines. Incidentally, it's perfectly possible to decide for particular finite turing machines whether it halts - basically either set a time-out equivalent to the Busy Beaver for that TM (and it either halts before, or blows the time-out in which case it never halts), or, IIRC, you can store every configuration of the tape it passes through and if it repeats any configuration, then it will not halt. Neither of these is especially useful.

Comment author: dlthomas 08 December 2011 08:17:43PM 2 points [-]

That would only work for some turing machines.

Of course. I made no claim at having solved the halting problem. My response was specifically to,

what empirical data could prove that it halts eventually, other than seeing it halt?

There is nothing else that will reliably show this for all machines. There are absolutely things that will show this for some machines.

Comment author: Incorrect 08 December 2011 08:07:20PM 1 point [-]

Those heuristics and any others you come up with will fail to tractably confirm whether some machines halt.

Comment author: dlthomas 08 December 2011 08:11:15PM 3 points [-]

Yes, but they can confirm that some machines will halt, without observing that they have halted, which seemed to be what was asked for. Any such approach must of course say "I don't know" (or itself fail to halt) in some cases.

Comment author: jsteinhardt 09 December 2011 03:05:42AM 0 points [-]

My apologies, I was imprecise in my original comment. I was trying to get at the fact that "whether Turing machine M halts" is not actually a concrete question, as had been claimed above (I was assuming that the reason it was presumed to be concrete is because you can just watch the machine and it either halts or doesn't, and my point was that you can't actually just watch a machine to see if it will halt).