MHB Halting problem is undecidable proof confusion-:

  • Thread starter Thread starter shivajikobardan
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Confusion Proof
AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on the contradiction arising from the assumption that a Turing machine H can solve the halting problem. It explains that if D halts on its own description R(D), then according to the definition of H', H' must loop on R(D). This leads to the conclusion that D cannot halt on R(D). Conversely, if D loops on R(D), then H' must halt, implying that D halts on R(D). This creates a logical paradox where both conditions cannot simultaneously hold true, resulting in the statement P (D halts on R(D)) being equivalent to its negation, leading to the conclusion that such a Turing machine H cannot exist. This contradiction underscores the undecidability of the halting problem.
shivajikobardan
Messages
637
Reaction score
54
https://slideplayer.com/slide/10708471/
This is the context I am talking about.

KgCMu.png


What contradiction occur here? We begin by telling that there is a Turing machine H that solves the halting problem. So how does this contradicts? Can you tell me about that?

What contradiction occur here? We begin by telling that there is a Turing machine H that solves the halting problem. So how does this contradicts? Can you tell me about that?
 
Technology news on Phys.org
I write $M(w)$ for the computation of a TM $M$ on inout $w$. The contradiction is as follows. If $D$ halts on $R(D)$, then by the definition of $H'$ we have $H'(R(D), R(D))$ loops. But the latter computation is a part of the computation $D(R(D))$; therefore, $D$ loops on $R(D)$. This is by itself is not a contradiction yet; it just means that $D$ cannot halt on $R(D)$. However, the inversion of that implication also holds: if $D$ loops on $R(D)$, then by the definition of $H'$ we have $H'(R(D), R(D))$ halts. Since this computation is the last portion of $D(R(D))$, the latter computation halts as well. So if we denote "$D$ halts on $R(D)$" by $P$, we get both $P\to\neg P$ (which implies $\neg P$) and $\neg P\to P$, which together with the former implication means $P\leftrightarrow \neg P$. This is a contradiction.
 
Dear Peeps I have posted a few questions about programing on this sectio of the PF forum. I want to ask you veterans how you folks learn program in assembly and about computer architecture for the x86 family. In addition to finish learning C, I am also reading the book From bits to Gates to C and Beyond. In the book, it uses the mini LC3 assembly language. I also have books on assembly programming and computer architecture. The few famous ones i have are Computer Organization and...
I have a quick questions. I am going through a book on C programming on my own. Afterwards, I plan to go through something call data structures and algorithms on my own also in C. I also need to learn C++, Matlab and for personal interest Haskell. For the two topic of data structures and algorithms, I understand there are standard ones across all programming languages. After learning it through C, what would be the biggest issue when trying to implement the same data...

Similar threads

Replies
4
Views
3K
Replies
6
Views
2K
Replies
9
Views
3K
Replies
1
Views
1K
Replies
9
Views
2K
Back
Top