srn347 comments on Second-Order Logic: The Controversy - LessWrong

24 Post author: Eliezer_Yudkowsky 04 January 2013 07:51PM

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

Comments (188)

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

Comment author: [deleted] 08 January 2013 05:42:41AM 3 points [-]

Actually, the halting problem has been proven impossible, for if third order logic can be used to determine if/when a turing machine halts, a turing machine could run that on itself, but would take necessarily more than N steps to determine that it halts (where N is the number of steps it halts in), which contradicts. Third-order logic may be able to do the inconceivable, but not the noncomputable.

Comment author: Gurkenglas 19 March 2014 03:14:20PM *  0 points [-]

That's not the standard proof, at least not the one I know: You haven't proven that it would necessarily take more than N steps. The way it goes is that you assume there is a machine that halts iff the machine you give it runs forever given itself as input; now if you run it on itself, if it halts, it is wrong, and if it doesn't halt, it is also wrong, meaning our assumption was wrong.