Hubbry Logo
Halting problemHalting problemMain
Open search
Halting problem
Community hub
Halting problem
logo
7 pages, 0 posts
0 subscribers
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Contribute something
Halting problem
Halting problem
Halting problem
View on Wikipedia
from Wikipedia

In computability theory, the halting problem is the problem of determining, from a description of an arbitrary computer program and an input, whether the program will finish running, or continue to run forever. The halting problem is undecidable, meaning that no general algorithm exists that solves the halting problem for all possible program–input pairs. The problem comes up often in discussions of computability since it demonstrates that some functions are mathematically definable but not computable.

A key part of the formal statement of the problem is a mathematical definition of a computer and program, usually via a Turing machine. The proof then shows, for any program f that might determine whether programs halt, that a "pathological" program g exists for which f makes an incorrect determination. Specifically, g is the program that, when called with some input, passes its own source and its input to f and does the opposite of what f predicts g will do. The behavior of f on g shows undecidability as it means no program f will solve the halting problem in every possible case.

Background

[edit]

The halting problem is a decision problem about properties of computer programs on a fixed Turing-complete model of computation, i.e., all programs that can be written in some given programming language that is general enough to be equivalent to a Turing machine. The problem is to determine, given a program and an input to the program, whether the program will eventually halt when run with that input. In this abstract framework, there are no resource limitations on the amount of memory or time required for the program's execution; it can take arbitrarily long and use an arbitrary amount of storage space before halting. The question is simply whether the given program will ever halt on a particular input.

For example, in pseudocode, the program

while (true) continue

does not halt; rather, it goes on forever in an infinite loop. On the other hand, the program

print "Hello, world!"

does halt.

While deciding whether these programs halt is simple, more complex programs prove problematic. One approach to the problem might be to run the program for some number of steps and check if it halts. However, as long as the program is running, it is unknown whether it will eventually halt or run forever. Turing proved no algorithm exists that always correctly decides whether, for a given arbitrary program and input, the program halts when run with that input. The essence of Turing's proof is that any such algorithm can be made to produce contradictory output and therefore cannot be correct.

Programming consequences

[edit]

Some infinite loops can be quite useful. For instance, event loops are typically coded as infinite loops.[1] However, most subroutines are intended to finish.[2] In particular, in hard real-time computing, programmers attempt to write subroutines that are not only guaranteed to finish, but are also guaranteed to finish before a given deadline.[3]

Sometimes these programmers use some general-purpose (Turing-complete) programming language, but attempt to write in a restricted style—such as MISRA C or SPARK—that makes it easy to prove that the resulting subroutines finish before the given deadline.[citation needed]

Other times these programmers apply the rule of least power—they deliberately use a computer language that is not quite fully Turing-complete. Frequently, these are languages that guarantee all subroutines finish, such as Rocq.[citation needed]

Common pitfalls

[edit]

The difficulty in the halting problem lies in the requirement that the decision procedure must work for all programs and inputs. A particular program either halts on a given input or does not halt. Consider one algorithm that always answers "halts" and another that always answers "does not halt". For any specific program and input, one of these two algorithms answers correctly, even though nobody may know which one. Yet neither algorithm solves the halting problem generally.

There are programs (interpreters) that simulate the execution of whatever source code they are given. Such programs can demonstrate that a program does halt if this is the case: the interpreter itself will eventually halt its simulation, which shows that the original program halted. However, an interpreter will not halt if its input program does not halt, so this approach cannot solve the halting problem as stated; it does not successfully answer "does not halt" for programs that do not halt.

The halting problem is theoretically decidable for linear bounded automata (LBAs) or deterministic machines with finite memory. A machine with finite memory has a finite number of configurations, and thus any deterministic program on it must eventually either halt or repeat a previous configuration:[4]

...any finite-state machine, if left completely to itself, will fall eventually into a perfectly periodic repetitive pattern. The duration of this repeating pattern cannot exceed the number of internal states of the machine...

However, a computer with a million small parts, each with two states, would have at least 21,000,000 possible states:[5]

This is a 1 followed by about three hundred thousand zeroes ... Even if such a machine were to operate at the frequencies of cosmic rays, the aeons of galactic evolution would be as nothing compared to the time of a journey through such a cycle:

Although a machine may be finite, and finite automata "have a number of theoretical limitations":[5]

...the magnitudes involved should lead one to suspect that theorems and arguments based chiefly on the mere finiteness [of] the state diagram may not carry a great deal of significance.

It can also be decided automatically whether a nondeterministic machine with finite memory halts on none, some, or all of the possible sequences of nondeterministic decisions, by enumerating states after each possible decision.

History

[edit]
Further information: Algorithm § History: Development of the notion of "algorithm"

In April 1936, Alonzo Church published his proof of the undecidability of a problem in the lambda calculus. Turing's proof was published later, in January 1937. Since then, many other undecidable problems have been described, including the halting problem which emerged in the 1950s.

Timeline

[edit]
  • 1900 (1900): David Hilbert poses his "23 questions" (now known as Hilbert's problems) at the Second International Congress of Mathematicians in Paris. "Of these, the second was that of proving the consistency of the 'Peano axioms' on which, as he had shown, the rigour of mathematics depended".[6]
  • 1920 (1920) – 1921 (1921): Emil Post explores the halting problem for tag systems, regarding it as a candidate for unsolvability.[7] Its unsolvability was not established until much later, by Marvin Minsky.[8]
  • 1928 (1928): Hilbert recasts his 'Second Problem' at the Bologna International Congress.[9] He posed three questions: i.e. #1: Was mathematics complete? #2: Was mathematics consistent? #3: Was mathematics decidable?[10] The third question is known as the Entscheidungsproblem (Decision Problem).[11]
  • 1930 (1930): Kurt Gödel announces a proof as an answer to the first two of Hilbert's 1928 questions.[12] "At first he [Hilbert] was only angry and frustrated, but then he began to try to deal constructively with the problem... Gödel himself felt—and expressed the thought in his paper—that his work did not contradict Hilbert's formalistic point of view".[13]
  • 1931 (1931): Gödel publishes "On Formally Undecidable Propositions of Principia Mathematica and Related Systems I".[14]
  • 19 April 1935 (1935-04-19): Alonzo Church publishes "An Unsolvable Problem of Elementary Number Theory", which proposes that the intuitive notion of an effectively calculable function can be formalized by the general recursive functions or equivalently by the lambda-definable functions. He proves that the halting problem for lambda calculus (i.e., whether a given lambda-expression has a normal form) is not effectively calculable.[15]
  • 1936 (1936): Church publishes the first proof that the Entscheidungsproblem is unsolvable, using a notion of calculation by recursive functions.[16]
  • 7 October 1936 (1936-10-07): Emil Post's paper "Finite Combinatory Processes. Formulation I" is received. Post adds to his "process" an instruction "(C) Stop". He called such a process "type 1 ... if the process it determines terminates for each specific problem."[17]
  • May 1936 (1936-05) – January 1937 (1937-01): Alan Turing's paper On Computable Numbers With an Application to the Entscheidungsproblem goes to press in May 1936 and reaches print in January 1937.[18] Turing proves three problems undecidable: the "satisfaction" problem, the "printing" problem, and the Entscheidungsproblem.[19] Turing's proof differs from Church's by introducing the notion of computation by machine. This is one of the "first examples of decision problems proved unsolvable".[20]
  • 1939 (1939): J. Barkley Rosser observes the essential equivalence of "effective method" defined by Gödel, Church, and Turing.[21]
  • 1943 (1943): In a paper, Stephen Kleene states that "In setting up a complete algorithmic theory, what we do is describe a procedure ... which procedure necessarily terminates and in such manner that from the outcome we can read a definite answer, 'Yes' or 'No,' to the question, 'Is the predicate value true?'."
  • 1952 (1952): Kleene includes a discussion of the unsolvability of the halting problem for Turing machines and reformulates it in terms of machines that "eventually stop", i.e. halt: "...there is no algorithm for deciding whether any given machine, when started from any given situation, eventually stops."[20]
  • 1952 (1952): Martin Davis uses the term 'halting problem' in a series of lectures at the Control Systems Laboratory at the University of Illinois in 1952. It is likely that this is the first such use of the term.[22]

Origin of the halting problem

[edit]

Many papers and textbooks refer the definition and proof of undecidability of the halting problem to Turing's 1936 paper. However, this is not correct.[19][23] Turing did not use the terms "halt" or "halting" in any of his published works, including his 1936 paper.[24] A search of the academic literature from 1936 to 1958 showed that the first published material using the term "halting problem" was Rogers (1957). However, Rogers says he had a draft of Davis (1958) available to him,[19] and Martin Davis states in the introduction that "the expert will perhaps find some novelty in the arrangement and treatment of topics",[25] so the terminology must be attributed to Davis.[19][23] Davis stated in a letter that he had been referring to the halting problem since 1952.[22] The usage in Davis's book is as follows:[26]

"[...] we wish to determine whether or not [a Turing machine] Z, if placed in a given initial state, will eventually halt. We call this problem the halting problem for Z. [...]

Theorem 2.2 There exists a Turing machine whose halting problem is recursively unsolvable.

A related problem is the printing problem for a simple Turing machine Z with respect to a symbol Si".

A possible precursor to Davis's formulation is Kleene's 1952 statement, which differs only in wording:[19][20]

there is no algorithm for deciding whether any given machine, when started from any given situation, eventually stops.

The halting problem is Turing equivalent to both Davis's printing problem ("does a Turing machine starting from a given state ever print a given symbol?") and to the printing problem considered in Turing's 1936 paper ("does a Turing machine starting from a blank tape ever print a given symbol?"). However, Turing equivalence is rather loose and does not mean that the two problems are the same. There are machines which print but do not halt, and halt but not print. The printing and halting problems address different issues and exhibit important conceptual and technical differences. Thus, Davis was simply being modest when he said:[19]

It might also be mentioned that the unsolvability of essentially these problems was first obtained by Turing.

Formalization

[edit]

In his original proof Turing formalized the concept of algorithm by introducing Turing machines. However, the result is in no way specific to them; it applies equally to any other model of computation that is equivalent in its computational power to Turing machines, such as Markov algorithms, Lambda calculus, Post systems, register machines, or tag systems.

What is important is that the formalization allows a straightforward mapping of algorithms to some data type that the algorithm can operate upon. For example, if the formalism lets algorithms define functions over strings (such as Turing machines) then there should be a mapping of these algorithms to strings, and if the formalism lets algorithms define functions over natural numbers (such as computable functions) then there should be a mapping of algorithms to natural numbers. The mapping to strings is usually the most straightforward, but strings over an alphabet with n characters can also be mapped to numbers by interpreting them as numbers in an n-ary numeral system.

Representation as a set

[edit]
Main article: Decision problem

The conventional representation of decision problems is the set of objects possessing the property in question. The halting set

K = {(i, x) | program i halts when run on input x}

represents the halting problem.

This set is recursively enumerable, which means there is a computable function that lists all of the pairs (i, x) it contains. However, the complement of this set is not recursively enumerable.[27]

There are many equivalent formulations of the halting problem; any set whose Turing degree equals that of the halting problem is such a formulation. Examples of such sets include:

  • {i | program i eventually halts when run with input 0}
  • {i | there is an input x such that program i eventually halts when run with input x}.

Proof concept

[edit]

Christopher Strachey outlined a proof by contradiction that the halting problem is not solvable.[28][29] The proof proceeds as follows: Suppose that there exists a total computable function halts(f) that returns true if the subroutine f halts (when run with no inputs) and returns false otherwise. Now consider the following subroutine: 

def g():
    if halts(g):
        loop_forever()

halts(g) must either return true or false, because halts was assumed to be total. If halts(g) returns true, then g will call loop_forever and never halt, which is a contradiction. If halts(g) returns false, then g will halt, because it will not call loop_forever; this is also a contradiction. Overall, g does the opposite of what halts says g should do, so halts(g) can not return a truth value that is consistent with whether g halts. Therefore, the initial assumption that halts is a total computable function must be false.

Sketch of rigorous proof

[edit]

The concept above shows the general method of the proof, but the computable function halts does not directly take a subroutine as an argument; instead it takes the source code of a program. Moreover, the definition of g is self-referential. A rigorous proof addresses these issues. The overall goal is to show that there is no total computable function that decides whether an arbitrary program i halts on arbitrary input x; that is, the following function h (for "halts") is not computable:[30]

Here program i refers to the i th program in an enumeration of all the programs of a fixed Turing-complete model of computation.

f(i,j) i
1 2 3 4 5 6
j 1 1 0 0 1 0 1
2 0 0 0 1 0 0
3 0 1 0 1 0 1
4 1 0 0 1 0 0
5 0 0 0 1 1 1
6 1 1 0 0 1 0
f(i,i) 1 0 0 1 1 0
g(i) U 0 0 U U 0

Possible values for a total computable function f arranged in a 2D array. The orange cells are the diagonal. The values of f(i,i) and g(i) are shown at the bottom; U indicates that the function g is undefined for a particular input value.

The proof proceeds by directly establishing that no total computable function with two arguments can be the required function h. As in the sketch of the concept, given any total computable binary function f, the following partial function g is also computable by some program e:

The verification that g is computable relies on the following constructs (or their equivalents):

  • computable subprograms (the program that computes f is a subprogram in program e),
  • duplication of values (program e computes the inputs i,i for f from the input i for g),
  • conditional branching (program e selects between two results depending on the value it computes for f(i,i)),
  • not producing a defined result (for example, by looping forever),
  • returning a value of 0.

The following pseudocode for e illustrates a straightforward way to compute g: 

procedure e(i):
    if f(i, i) == 0 then
        return 0
    else
        loop forever

Because g is partial computable, there must be a program e that computes g, by the assumption that the model of computation is Turing-complete. This program is one of all the programs on which the halting function h is defined. The next step of the proof shows that h(e,e) will not have the same value as f(e,e).

It follows from the definition of g that exactly one of the following two cases must hold:

  • f(e,e) = 0 and so g(e) = 0. In this case program e halts on input e, so h(e,e) = 1.
  • f(e,e) ≠ 0 and so g(e) is undefined. In this case program e does not halt on input e, so h(e,e) = 0.

In either case, f cannot be the same function as h. Because f was an arbitrary total computable function with two arguments, all such functions must differ from h.

This proof is analogous to Cantor's diagonal argument. One may visualize a two-dimensional array with one column and one row for each natural number, as indicated in the table above. The value of f(i,j) is placed at column i, row j. Because f is assumed to be a total computable function, any element of the array can be calculated using f. The construction of the function g can be visualized using the main diagonal of this array. If the array has a 0 at position (i,i), then g(i) is 0. Otherwise, g(i) is undefined. The contradiction comes from the fact that there is some column e of the array corresponding to g itself. Now assume f was the halting function h, if g(e) is defined (g(e) = 0 in this case), g(e) halts so f(e,e) = 1. But g(e) = 0 only when f(e,e) = 0, contradicting f(e,e) = 1. Similarly, if g(e) is not defined, then halting function f(e,e) = 0, which leads to g(e) = 0 under g's construction. This contradicts the assumption of g(e) not being defined. In both cases contradiction arises. Therefore any arbitrary computable function f cannot be the halting function h.

Computability theory

[edit]
Main article: Computability theory

A typical method of proving a problem to be undecidable is to reduce the halting problem to . For example, there cannot be a general algorithm that decides whether a given statement about natural numbers is true or false. The reason for this is that the proposition stating that a certain program will halt given a certain input can be converted into an equivalent statement about natural numbers. If an algorithm could find the truth value of every statement about natural numbers, it could certainly find the truth value of this one; but that would determine whether the original program halts.

Rice's theorem generalizes the theorem that the halting problem is unsolvable. It states that for any non-trivial property, there is no general decision procedure that, for all programs, decides whether the partial function implemented by the input program has that property. (A partial function is a function which may not always produce a result, and so is used to model programs, which can either produce results or fail to halt.) For example, the property "halt for the input 0" is undecidable. Here, "non-trivial" means that the set of partial functions that satisfy the property is neither the empty set nor the set of all partial functions. For example, "halts or fails to halt on input 0" is clearly true of all partial functions, so it is a trivial property, and can be decided by an algorithm that simply reports "true." Also, this theorem holds only for properties of the partial function implemented by the program; Rice's Theorem does not apply to properties of the program itself. For example, "halt on input 0 within 100 steps" is not a property of the partial function that is implemented by the program—it is a property of the program implementing the partial function and is very much decidable.

Gregory Chaitin has defined a halting probability, represented by the symbol Ω, a type of real number that informally is said to represent the probability that a randomly produced program halts. These numbers have the same Turing degree as the halting problem. It is a normal and transcendental number which can be defined but cannot be completely computed. This means one can prove that there is no algorithm which produces the digits of Ω, although its first few digits can be calculated in simple cases.

Since the negative answer to the halting problem shows that there are problems that cannot be solved by a Turing machine, the Church–Turing thesis limits what can be accomplished by any machine that implements effective methods. However, not all machines conceivable to human imagination are subject to the Church–Turing thesis (e.g. oracle machines). It is an open question whether there can be actual deterministic physical processes that, in the long run, elude simulation by a Turing machine, and in particular whether any such hypothetical process could usefully be harnessed in the form of a calculating machine (a hypercomputer) that could solve the halting problem for a Turing machine amongst other things. It is also an open question whether any such unknown physical processes are involved in the working of the human brain, and whether humans can solve the halting problem.[31]

Approximations

[edit]

Turing's proof shows that there can be no mechanical, general method (i.e., a Turing machine or a program in some equivalent model of computation) to determine whether algorithms halt. However, each individual instance of the halting problem has a definitive answer, which may or may not be practically computable. Given a specific algorithm and input, one can often show that it halts or does not halt, and in fact computer scientists often do just that as part of a correctness proof. There are some heuristics that can be used in an automated fashion to attempt to construct a proof, which frequently succeed on typical programs. This field of research is known as automated termination analysis.

Some results have been established on the theoretical performance of halting problem heuristics, in particular the fraction of programs of a given size that may be correctly classified by a recursive algorithm. These results do not give precise numbers because the fractions are uncomputable and also highly dependent on the choice of program encoding used to determine "size". For example, consider classifying programs by their number of states and using a specific "Turing semi-infinite tape" model of computation that errors (without halting) if the program runs off the left side of the tape. Then , over programs chosen uniformly by number of states. But this result is in some sense "trivial" because these decidable programs are simply the ones that fall off the tape, and the heuristic is simply to predict not halting due to error. Thus a seemingly irrelevant detail, namely the treatment of programs with errors, can turn out to be the deciding factor in determining the fraction of programs.[32]

To avoid these issues, several restricted notions of the "size" of a program have been developed. A dense Gödel numbering assigns numbers to programs such that each computable function occurs a positive fraction in each sequence of indices from 1 to n, i.e. a Gödelization φ is dense iff for all , there exists a such that . For example, a numbering that assigns indices to nontrivial programs and all other indices the error state is not dense, but there exists a dense Gödel numbering of syntactically correct Brainfuck programs.[33] A dense Gödel numbering is called optimal if, for any other Gödel numbering , there is a 1-1 total recursive function and a constant such that for all , and . This condition ensures that all programs have indices not much larger than their indices in any other Gödel numbering. Optimal Gödel numberings are constructed by numbering the inputs of a universal Turing machine.[34] A third notion of size uses universal machines operating on binary strings and measures the length of the string needed to describe the input program. A universal machine U is a machine for which every other machine V there exists a total computable function h such that . An optimal machine is a universal machine that achieves the Kolmogorov complexity invariance bound, i.e. for every machine V, there exists c such that for all outputs x, if a V-program of length n outputs x, then there exists a U-program of at most length outputting x.[35]

We consider partial computable functions (algorithms) . For each we consider the fraction of errors among all programs of size metric at most , counting each program for which fails to terminate, produces a "don't know" answer, or produces a wrong answer, i.e. halts and outputs DOES_NOT_HALT, or does not halt and outputs HALTS. The behavior may be described as follows, for dense Gödelizations and optimal machines:[33][35]

  • For every algorithm , . In words, any algorithm has a positive minimum error rate, even as the size of the problem becomes extremely large.
  • There exists such that for every algorithm , . In words, there is a positive error rate for which any algorithm will do worse than that error rate arbitrarily often, even as the size of the problem grows indefinitely.
  • . In words, there is a sequence of algorithms such that the error rate gets arbitrarily close to zero for a specific sequence of increasing sizes. However, this result allows sequences of algorithms that produce wrong answers.
  • If we consider only "honest" algorithms that may be undefined but never produce wrong answers, then depending on the metric, may or may not be 0. In particular it is 0 for left-total universal machines, but for effectively optimal machines it is greater than 0.[35]

The complex nature of these bounds is due to the oscillatory behavior of . There are infrequently occurring new varieties of programs that come in arbitrarily large "blocks", and a constantly growing fraction of repeats. If the blocks of new varieties are fully included, the error rate is at least , but between blocks the fraction of correctly categorized repeats can be arbitrarily high. In particular a "tally" heuristic that simply remembers the first N inputs and recognizes their equivalents allows reaching an arbitrarily low error rate infinitely often.[33]

Gödel's incompleteness theorems

[edit]

The concepts raised by Gödel's incompleteness theorems are very similar to those raised by the halting problem, and the proofs are quite similar. In fact, a weaker form of the First Incompleteness Theorem is an easy consequence of the undecidability of the halting problem. This weaker form differs from the standard statement of the incompleteness theorem by asserting that an effective axiomatization of the natural numbers that is both complete and sound is impossible. The "sound" part is the weakening: it means that we require the axiomatic system in question to prove only true statements about natural numbers. Since soundness implies consistency, this weaker form can be seen as a corollary of the strong form. It is important to observe that the statement of the standard form of Gödel's First Incompleteness Theorem is completely unconcerned with the truth value of a statement, but only concerns the issue of whether it is possible to find it through a mathematical proof.

The weaker form of the theorem can be proved from the undecidability of the halting problem as follows.[36] Assume that we have a sound (and hence consistent) and complete effective axiomatization of all true first-order logic statements about natural numbers. Then we can build an algorithm that enumerates all these statements. This means that there is an algorithm N(n) that, given a natural number n, computes a true first-order logic statement about natural numbers, and that for all true statements, there is at least one n such that N(n) yields that statement. Now suppose we want to decide if the algorithm with representation a halts on input i. We know that this statement can be expressed with a first-order logic statement, say H(a, i). Since the axiomatization is complete it follows that either there is an n such that N(n) = H(a, i) or there is an n′ such that N(n′) = ¬ H(a, i). So if we iterate over all n until we either find H(a, i) or its negation, we will always halt, and furthermore, the answer it gives us will be true (by soundness). This means that this gives us an algorithm to decide the halting problem. Since we know that there cannot be such an algorithm, it follows that the assumption that there is a sound and complete effective axiomatization of all true first-order logic statements about natural numbers must be false.

Generalization

[edit]

Many variants of the halting problem can be found in computability textbooks.[37] Typically, these problems are RE-complete and describe sets of complexity in the arithmetical hierarchy, the same as the standard halting problem. The variants are thus undecidable, and the standard halting problem reduces to each variant and vice-versa. However, some variants have a higher degree of unsolvability and cannot be reduced to the standard halting problem. The next two examples are common.

Halting on all inputs

[edit]

The universal halting problem, also known (in recursion theory) as totality, is the problem of determining whether a given computer program will halt for every input (the name totality comes from the equivalent question of whether the computed function is total). This problem is not only undecidable, as the halting problem is, but highly undecidable. In terms of the arithmetical hierarchy, it is -complete.[38]

This means, in particular, that it cannot be decided even with an oracle for the halting problem.

Recognizing partial solutions

[edit]

There are many programs that, for some inputs, return a correct answer to the halting problem, while for other inputs they do not return an answer at all. However the problem "given program p, is it a partial halting solver" (in the sense described) is at least as hard as the halting problem. To see this, assume that there is an algorithm PHSR ("partial halting solver recognizer") to do that. Then it can be used to solve the halting problem, as follows: To test whether input program x halts on y, construct a program p that on input (x,y) reports true and diverges on all other inputs. Then test p with PHSR.

The above argument is a reduction of the halting problem to PHS recognition, and in the same manner, harder problems such as halting on all inputs can also be reduced, implying that PHS recognition is not only undecidable, but higher in the arithmetical hierarchy, specifically -complete.

Lossy computation

[edit]

A lossy Turing machine is a Turing machine in which part of the tape may non-deterministically disappear. The halting problem is decidable for a lossy Turing machine but non-primitive recursive.[39]

Oracle machines

[edit]
See also: Turing jump

A machine with an oracle for the halting problem can determine whether particular Turing machines will halt on particular inputs, but they cannot determine, in general, whether machines equivalent to themselves will halt.

See also

[edit]

Notes

[edit]

References

[edit]

Further reading

[edit]
[edit]
Revisions and contributorsEdit on WikipediaRead on Wikipedia

Halting problem

View on Grokipedia
from Grokipedia
The halting problem is a in that asks whether there exists a general capable of determining, for any given and input, if the program will eventually halt (terminate) or continue running indefinitely. This problem, first formally analyzed by , reveals inherent limitations in mechanical computation, as no such universal can exist for all possible programs and inputs. Turing introduced the halting problem in his seminal 1936 paper, "On Computable Numbers, with an Application to the ," where he modeled computation using abstract machines—now called Turing machines—to define what it means for a number or function to be computable. To prove its undecidability, Turing employed a diagonalization argument: assuming a exists leads to a contradiction, as one can construct a program that behaves oppositely to the oracle's prediction on itself, resulting in a logical paradox. This proof not only settled the — Hilbert's question of whether there is an algorithm to determine the validity of first-order formulas—but also established the foundations of modern . The implications of the halting problem extend far beyond its initial context, underscoring that certain problems are intrinsically unsolvable by any computational process, no matter how powerful. It serves as a for demonstrating the undecidability of related issues, such as the totality problem (determining if a program halts on all inputs) and problems in program verification, compiler design, and . In practice, while specific instances of the halting problem can often be resolved through analysis or timeouts, the general case's undecidability highlights the boundaries of in and theoretical , influencing fields from .

Fundamentals

Informal Description

The halting problem concerns whether it is possible to devise a general procedure that, for any given and input, can determine if the program will eventually stop running or continue indefinitely. This question captures a fundamental limit on what computers can compute about their own behavior, as programs can encode arbitrarily complex processes that may loop forever without producing an output. A relatable appears in everyday programming challenges, such as determining if a loop will terminate. For instance, the describes a simple rule: start with any positive integer, and if it is even, divide by 2; if odd, multiply by 3 and add 1; repeat the process. Despite extensive verification for large numbers, no proof exists that this always reaches 1 and stops, highlighting how even straightforward iterative algorithms can defy prediction of termination. The difficulty stems from the fact that programs can mimic the execution of other programs, creating scenarios of self-reference where a halting predictor might need to analyze itself, leading to paradoxes and an inability to resolve all cases algorithmically. introduced this problem in 1936 as part of his response to the —the challenge posed by and in 1928 to find a mechanical method for determining the validity of first-order formulas.

Turing Machines

A serves as the foundational abstract , providing a precise framework for defining what it means for a function or procedure to be effectively calculable. Introduced by in his 1936 paper, it simulates the process of a human computer following a set of instructions to manipulate symbols on paper. This model underpins modern by capturing the intuitive notion of step-by-step mechanical without relying on specific physical implementations. The essential components of a Turing machine include an infinite tape, a read/write head, a finite state control unit, and a transition function. The tape is an unbounded one-dimensional strip divided into discrete cells, each capable of storing a single symbol from a known as the tape alphabet; initially, all cells beyond the input are blank. The read/write head positions itself on one cell at a time, allowing it to erase or overwrite the current symbol and then move left, right, or remain in place. The finite state control maintains one of a limited number of internal states, reflecting the machine's "configuration" at each step. The transition function governs the machine's operation by specifying, based on the current state and the symbol under the head, what symbol to write, which direction to move the head, and what the next state will be. Formally, a Turing machine MM is defined as a 7-tuple M=(Q,Σ,Γ,δ,q0,qaccept,qreject)M = (Q, \Sigma, \Gamma, \delta, q_0, q_{\text{accept}}, q_{\text{reject}}), where:
  • QQ is a finite set of states,
  • Σ\Sigma is the finite input (not containing the blank symbol),
  • Γ\Gamma is the finite tape alphabet with Σ⊆Γ\Sigma \subseteq \Gamma and a blank symbol ⊔∈Γ\sqcup \in \Gamma,
  • δ:Q×Γ→Q×Γ×{L,R}\delta: Q \times \Gamma \to Q \times \Gamma \times \{L, R\} is the partial transition function,
  • q0∈Qq_0 \in Q is the start state,
  • qaccept∈Qq_{\text{accept}} \in Q is the accept state, and
  • qreject∈Qq_{\text{reject}} \in Q is the reject state (with qaccept≠qrejectq_{\text{accept}} \neq q_{\text{reject}}).
The computation begins with the input string from Σ\Sigma placed on the tape starting at the leftmost cell, the head positioned on the first symbol, and the machine in state q0q_0; it proceeds by applying δ\delta repeatedly until entering qacceptq_{\text{accept}}, qrejectq_{\text{reject}}, or a state with no defined transition. To illustrate, consider a simple Turing machine that copies its input string of 0s and 1s, producing the original followed by a special marker 'c' and then an exact duplicate. Starting in state q1q_1, the machine scans right over the input until reaching a blank, writing 'c' and shifting to q2q_2 to move left. In the main loop (state q3q_3), it marks the current input symbol (0 as 'd' or 1 as 'e'), moves right to the copy area after 'c', and writes the original symbol (state q4q_4 for 0 or q5q_5 for 1) at the first blank encountered. It then returns left (state q6q_6), restores the marked symbol to its original, and repeats until all input is processed, finally halting in q8q_8 with the head at the start. The full set of transitions, such as (q3,0)→(q_3, 0) \to (write 'd', right, q4q_4), ensures the copy is built sequentially without overwriting the original. Turing machines are computationally equivalent to other foundational models, including Alonzo Church's and recursive function theory, in the sense that any procedure expressible in one can be simulated by the others with only polynomial overhead in resources. This equivalence supports the Church-Turing thesis, which asserts that the Turing machine captures the full extent of what is computable by any effective, finite procedure—encompassing all algorithmic methods feasible for human computation.

Historical Development

Precursors to Turing

The , or , was formally posed by and in their 1928 book Grundzüge der theoretischen Logik, challenging mathematicians to develop an algorithm that could mechanically determine the validity of any statement in first-order predicate logic. This problem encapsulated Hilbert's broader program for formalizing mathematics, aiming to establish a complete and consistent where all truths could be algorithmically verified or refuted. In 1931, Kurt Gödel's incompleteness theorems profoundly impacted this quest by demonstrating inherent limitations in s. Gödel's first theorem showed that in any consistent capable of expressing basic arithmetic, there exist true statements that cannot be proved within the system itself, as detailed in his seminal paper "Über formal unentscheidbare Sätze der und verwandter Systeme I," published in Monatshefte für Mathematik und Physik. The second theorem extended this by proving that such a system cannot prove its own consistency, underscoring the undecidability of certain propositions and challenging the feasibility of Hilbert's vision for algorithmic provability. Building on these foundations, Alonzo Church developed the lambda calculus between 1932 and 1936 as a model of computation and logical foundation. In his 1932 paper "A Set of Postulates for the Foundation of Logic," Church introduced lambda abstraction as a means to define functions anonymously, evolving it into a full system by 1933 that supported higher-order functions and recursion. Concurrently, Church explored recursive functions, proposing in his 1934 work that lambda-definable functions capture all effectively computable ones, a precursor to his later thesis on computability. These developments provided alternative frameworks to Turing machines for analyzing algorithmic processes, emphasizing functional abstraction over mechanical simulation. In early 1936, Church published "A Note on the " in the Journal of Symbolic Logic, proving the undecidability of predicate logic by reducing it to the non-recursive nature of certain predicates, thus providing a negative resolution to Hilbert's challenge. This work was developed independently and in parallel with Alan Turing's contemporaneous efforts, which reached an equivalent negative conclusion later that year without prior knowledge of each other's results, as Turing's paper was received in May 1936 and published in late 1936. This result, building on his and recursive function theory, highlighted the boundaries of algorithmic decision-making in logic and influenced subsequent research.

Turing's 1936 Paper

In 1936, published his seminal paper titled "On Computable Numbers, with an Application to the " in the Proceedings of the London Mathematical Society (Series 2, Volume 42, Issue 1, pages 230–265), received on 28 May and read on 12 November of that year. Turing's primary motivation was to address David Hilbert's , posed in 1928 as part of to formalize mathematics and determine whether there exists a general to decide the provability of any formula in first-order logic. Influenced by Gödel's 1931 incompleteness theorems, which demonstrated limitations in formal axiomatic systems, Turing sought to define the notion of "computable" precisely by modeling computation through idealized machines, thereby showing that no such general decision procedure exists. In the paper, Turing introduced the concept of computable numbers as those real numbers whose infinite decimal expansions can be generated by a finite algorithmic process, contrasting them with non-computable numbers that cannot be effectively calculated despite being mathematically definable. To formalize this, he described a theoretical device now known as the , consisting of an infinite tape divided into squares, a read-write head, and a of states, capable of performing computations by manipulating symbols on the tape according to a fixed table of instructions. Central to his framework was the universal Turing machine, a single machine that could simulate the behavior of any other given its complete description as input, enabling the encoding and execution of arbitrary computable processes. The halting problem, referred to by Turing as the "circle" problem, is explicitly posed in Section 8 of the (pages 246–248), where he questions whether there exists a general method to determine if a given , starting from a specific configuration, will eventually halt (being "circle-free") or enter an (being "circular"). Turing provided an informal argument sketch grounded in his earlier analogy of : he envisioned a "computer" performing calculations by writing symbols on an infinite sheet of divided into squares, observing only a finite portion at a time and operating in discrete states of mind, with movements limited to a fixed distance. This setup underscores the mechanizability of but leads to the insight that no such or machine process can reliably predict its own termination without risking paradox, as assuming a decider machine for halting would allow constructing a contradictory self-referential case.

Formalization

Decision Problem

The halting problem is formally defined as the question of whether, given a MM and an input string ww, the machine MM will eventually halt (terminate) when started on ww. This captures the fundamental limits of algorithmic determination regarding the termination behavior of computational processes modeled by . In precise terms, the halting problem corresponds to the set HALT={⟨M,w⟩∣M is a Turing machine that halts on input w},\text{HALT} = \{ \langle M, w \rangle \mid M \text{ is a Turing machine that halts on input } w \}, where ⟨M,w⟩\langle M, w \rangle denotes a standard encoding of the Turing machine MM and its input ww as a single string over a finite alphabet, such as binary. Membership in HALT means that simulating MM on ww reaches a halting state after finitely many steps, without entering an infinite computation. As a decision problem, the halting problem is equivalent to determining whether a given encoded pair ⟨M,w⟩\langle M, w \rangle belongs to the language HALT over the alphabet of possible encodings. This frames it within the theory of formal languages and automata, where a decider for HALT would be a that accepts exactly the strings in HALT and rejects those not in it. Turing machines provide the foundational model for this language recognition task, as they formalize the notion of effective computation. The computations performed by Turing machines yield partial recursive functions, which are functions from natural numbers (or strings) to natural numbers that may be undefined on some inputs if the machine fails to halt. A function is total recursive if it halts on all inputs, but many partial recursive functions are not total, precisely because halting is not guaranteed. The halting problem thus inquires whether the partial function computed by MM is defined (i.e., halts) at the specific input ww. Trivial examples illustrate the problem's scope: a Turing machine MM that immediately enters a halting state without reading its input belongs to HALT for every ww, as it always terminates in zero or one step. Conversely, a machine programmed to enter an —such as repeatedly writing a symbol and moving right without any halting condition—does not halt on any input, so ⟨M,w⟩∉\langle M, w \rangle \notin HALT for all ww. These cases highlight how the problem distinguishes terminating from non-terminating behaviors in simple scenarios, though it becomes intractable for general machines. In the —a classification of subsets of natural numbers based on the complexity of their definitions in first-order arithmetic—the set HALT resides at the lowest nontrivial level, Σ10\Sigma^0_1. The Σ10\Sigma^0_1 class consists of recursively enumerable sets, which can be expressed by formulas of the form ∃x ϕ(n,x)\exists x \, \phi(n, x), where ϕ\phi is a computable predicate and nn is a free variable representing elements of the set; for HALT, membership holds if there exists a finite trace leading to halting. This placement underscores that while HALT is "semidecidable" (one can confirm halting by simulation but not non-halting), it exceeds the decidable sets, which form the Δ10\Delta^0_1 level.

Reduction to Self-Reference

To formalize the halting problem in a way that enables a proof via self-reference, Turing machines must first be encoded as finite strings over a fixed , allowing them to serve as inputs to other machines. This encoding, analogous to for formal systems, represents the machine's states, symbols, transitions, and initial configuration as a unique "description number" or string, such as by mapping components to binary or decimal sequences. For instance, states and tape symbols are assigned numerical codes, and the transition function is serialized into a single string ⟨M⟩\langle M \rangle, ensuring that every MM has a computable encoding that captures its entire behavior. Building on this encoding, a UU can be constructed to simulate the execution of any MM on any input ww, given the pair ⟨M,w⟩\langle M, w \rangle as its own input. The universal machine UU operates by interpreting the encoded description ⟨M⟩\langle M \rangle, reconstructing MM's transition table, and iteratively updating a simulated tape and state to mimic MM's steps on ww, effectively computing the U(⟨M,w⟩)=M(w)U(\langle M, w \rangle) = M(w). This simulation is computable and requires only a fixed, of instructions in UU, independent of MM, demonstrating that the class of Turing-computable functions is closed under encoding. The reduction to self-reference proceeds by assuming the existence of a decider HH for the halting problem, which takes ⟨M,w⟩\langle M, w \rangle and determines whether MM halts on ww. Using this HH and the universal machine, one can define a DD that takes an encoded machine ⟨M⟩\langle M \rangle as input and behaves oppositely to HH's prediction on the self-input: DD halts on ⟨M⟩\langle M \rangle if H(⟨M,⟨M⟩⟩)H(\langle M, \langle M \rangle \rangle) indicates that MM does not halt on ⟨M⟩\langle M \rangle, and DD loops on ⟨M⟩\langle M \rangle if HH indicates that MM does halt on ⟨M⟩\langle M \rangle. Thus, D(⟨M⟩)D(\langle M \rangle) inverts the halting behavior predicted by HH for MM on ⟨M⟩\langle M \rangle. Applying this to DD's own description ⟨D⟩\langle D \rangle via HH—considering H(⟨D,⟨D⟩⟩)H(\langle D, \langle D \rangle \rangle)—yields a self-referential contradiction, as the prediction cannot consistently match DD's defined behavior. This setup leverages the encodings to reduce the general halting problem to the special case of deciding halting on self-encodings, generating the paradoxical self-application under the assumption of HH. Self-reference is essential here because the universal machine's simulation capability, combined with the assumed decider HH, allows the proof to internalize the contradiction within the model. By encoding machines as data, the construction ensures that self-referential inputs like ⟨M,⟨M⟩⟩\langle M, \langle M \rangle \rangle are valid and computably generatable, mirroring but adapted to computational processes.

Proof of Undecidability

Diagonalization Method

The diagonalization method is a proof technique originally developed by to demonstrate the uncountability of the s, where an assumed of all reals is contradicted by constructing a new real that differs from each listed number in at least one decimal place along the diagonal of the table. In the context of computability, adapted a similar diagonal argument in his 1936 paper to show that not all sequences are computable, by assuming an of computable sequences and constructing a contradictory sequence that diverges from the assumed list on the diagonal positions. This method exploits the countability of Turing machines, which can be enumerated as a list M1,M2,…M_1, M_2, \dots via their finite descriptions, to reveal inherent limitations in mechanical computation. Applied to the halting problem, the diagonalization technique proceeds by considering an infinite table where rows correspond to all possible MiM_i and columns to all possible inputs wjw_j, typically encoded as descriptions ⟨Mj⟩\langle M_j \rangle, with each entry indicating whether MiM_i halts (or accepts, in the related acceptance problem) on wjw_j. Assume a hypothetical halting solver HH exists that decides this table completely, outputting "halt" or "loop" for every entry. To derive a contradiction, construct a new DD—the "diagonal" machine—that, on input ⟨Mi⟩\langle M_i \rangle, simulates or queries HH on the pair (⟨Mi⟩,⟨Mi⟩)(\langle M_i \rangle, \langle M_i \rangle) (the diagonal entry) and then behaves oppositely: if HH predicts halting, DD loops indefinitely; if HH predicts looping, DD halts immediately. This flip ensures DD differs from every MiM_i in the on the specific input ⟨Mi⟩\langle M_i \rangle, particularly its own description ⟨D⟩\langle D \rangle, where applying HH to predict DD's behavior on ⟨D⟩\langle D \rangle leads to inconsistency—DD cannot both halt and loop as required. The method succeeds because Turing machines form a , allowing their complete enumeration in such a table, while the diagonal construction produces a machine whose halting behavior cannot be captured by any entry in the assumed solvable table, proving no such HH can exist. This self-referential diagonal flip, enabled by the encoding of machines as inputs, directly undermines the assumption of decidability without relying on external simulations.

Contradiction via Universal Machine

To complete the proof of undecidability, assume for contradiction that a Turing machine HH exists that solves the halting problem: given the standard description (S.D.) of any Turing machine MM and an input, HH determines whether MM halts on that input by outputting a specific symbol, such as "s" for halting (circle-free) or "u" for non-halting (circular). This HH effectively decides if the computation enters a repeating cycle or terminates. Now consider the universal UU, which can simulate the behavior of any MM given only MM's S.D. and an input encoded as a sequence of symbols on its tape. The simulation by UU involves interpreting the S.D. to mimic MM's transitions, adding a finite number of states and symbols to account for the encoding and decoding process; however, this overhead does not alter the fundamental halting behavior, as UU will halt if and only if the simulated MM halts, allowing HH to inspect the simulation's outcome. To derive the contradiction, construct a new machine KK whose S.D. incorporates HH and UU: KK takes as input the S.D. of some machine NN, uses HH to test if NN halts on its own S.D. as input, and if HH outputs "s" (indicating NN halts), KK enters an by repeatedly printing a fixed symbol without stopping; conversely, if HH outputs "u" (indicating NN does not halt), KK immediately halts. Apply KK to its own S.D., denoted ⟨K⟩\langle K \rangle: run HH on ⟨K⟩\langle K \rangle via UU's . If HH decides that KK halts on ⟨K⟩\langle K \rangle, then by KK's construction, KK loops infinitely, contradicting HH's decision. If HH decides that KK does not halt on ⟨K⟩\langle K \rangle, then KK halts immediately, again contradicting HH's decision. This covers all cases, as every computation either halts or runs forever without repetition (in Turing's model, non-halting implies a circular state), and the self-referential input ensures the simulation faithfully captures the behavior without external interference. Thus, no such HH can exist, establishing that the halting problem is undecidable.

Implications in

The undecidability of the halting problem implies incompleteness in formal systems capable of expressing basic arithmetic, as instances of the halting problem can be encoded as arithmetic statements within such theories. Specifically, for a consistent, effectively axiomatized theory TT that interprets QQ, the halting question for a mm on input xx translates to a Π1\Pi_1 sentence in the of arithmetic, asserting that no step leads to a halting state. Since the halting problem is undecidable, TT cannot prove all true such sentences, yielding an unprovable true statement and thus incompleteness. Turing's 1936 proof of the halting problem's undecidability can be viewed as a model-theoretic analogue to Gödel's 1931 syntactic argument for incompleteness, both employing diagonalization to construct self-referential paradoxes. While Gödel's construction yields a sentence asserting its own unprovability within Peano arithmetic, Turing's diagonal argument over Turing machines produces a machine that behaves oppositely to any purported halting oracle, revealing limits in effective procedures. This parallel underscores how both results exploit self-reference to expose boundaries in formal and computational systems. A key corollary is that no consistent theory TT extending QQ can prove all instances of the halting problem for a sound system, as such provability would yield a decision procedure contradicting undecidability. If TT is ω\omega-consistent, the sentence encoding non-halting for a self-referential machine remains unprovable, mirroring Gödel's undecidable sentence. This extends to the second incompleteness theorem: TT cannot prove its own consistency, as that would imply proving all halting instances, which is impossible. In modern , both the halting problem and Gödel's theorems illustrate the pervasive power of diagonalization in revealing inherent limitations of formal systems. They demonstrate that truth in arithmetic outstrips provability, with the halting problem providing a -theoretic lens on these limits. The Church-Turing thesis further bridges these domains by positing that effective aligns with provability in formal systems, implying that limits on computation (like undecidability) directly constrain provability. Thus, the thesis ties the halting problem's insolubility to the incompleteness of any sufficiently strong axiomatic theory.

Rice's Theorem Overview

Rice's theorem, established by Henry Gordon Rice in 1953, provides a powerful generalization of the undecidability of the halting problem, asserting that all non-trivial semantic properties of the functions computed by Turing machines are undecidable. A semantic property concerns the behavior or output of the computed function, independent of the specific syntax or implementation of the machine. Formally, let ϕe\phi_e denote the partial recursive function computed by the ee-th Turing machine in a standard enumeration. For a set CC of partial recursive functions that is neither empty nor the set of all partial recursive functions (i.e., non-trivial), the index set {e∣ϕe∈C}\{ e \mid \phi_e \in C \} is undecidable. Trivial properties, such as those holding for every partial recursive function (e.g., the function being partial recursive) or for none, yield decidable index sets, but these offer no substantive information about program behavior. The proof of Rice's theorem proceeds by reduction from the halting problem, specifically the question of whether a given halts on the empty tape. Given a MM and a non-trivial property CC, construct a new NN that, on any input, first simulates MM on the empty tape; if MM halts, NN then simulates a fixed M0M_0 whose computed function is in CC, and otherwise diverges. The for CC then decides the halting behavior of MM on the empty tape, which is impossible unless CC is trivial. This reduction demonstrates that the undecidability inherent in the halting problem propagates to any non-trivial . Illustrative examples of undecidable properties under include determining whether a Turing machine computes a total function (i.e., halts on all inputs) or whether it computes the constant zero function. Another example is verifying if the computed function outputs even values for all inputs, as this defines a non-trivial subset of partial recursive functions. The implications of are profound for and , revealing that most interesting questions about program semantics—such as equivalence to a specification, absence of errors, or adherence to non-trivial behavioral constraints—cannot be algorithmically resolved in general. This foundational result underscores the inherent limitations of automated and verification tools, which must rely on approximations or restrictions to specific cases to achieve decidability.

Generalizations

Parameterized Halting

The parameterized halting problem encompasses variations of the standard halting problem where additional parameters, such as fixed inputs or requirements across multiple inputs, are introduced, yet undecidability often persists due to effective reductions from the original problem. One such variation is the binary halting problem, which asks whether a given Turing machine halts on a specific fixed input, such as the empty tape. This problem remains undecidable, as it can be shown by a mapping reduction from the general halting problem: for an arbitrary machine MM and input ww, construct a new machine M′M' that first writes ww on the tape and then simulates MM on ww, starting from the blank tape; M′M' halts on the blank tape if and only if MM halts on ww. A more demanding parameterization is the totality problem, which determines whether a given halts on all possible inputs. This problem is not only undecidable but occupies a higher level in the arithmetic hierarchy, specifically Π20\Pi_2^0-complete, meaning it is as hard as any problem expressible as ∀x∃y R(e,x,y)\forall x \exists y \, R(e, x, y) for a recursive RR. To see its undecidability, note that assuming a decider for totality would allow solving the halting problem: given machine MM and input ww, construct M′M' that on any input simulates MM on ww (ignoring its own input) and halts if that simulation halts; then M′M' halts on all inputs MM halts on ww. In terms of formal complexity classes, the standard halting problem (parameterized by machine and input) is recursively enumerable (RE)-complete, meaning every RE set reduces to it via many-one reduction, while the co-halting problem (non-halting) is co-RE-complete. These classifications highlight that adding parameters does not resolve undecidability, as computable reductions from the RE-complete halting problem preserve the negative result across variants.

Oracle and Hypercomputation Models

extend the standard model by incorporating an external that provides answers to questions beyond the capabilities of ordinary . An is a augmented with access to an set, which acts as a answering membership queries instantaneously. When the oracle set is the halting set—consisting of all pairs (e, x) where e halts on input x—the resulting machine can decide the halting problem for all standard . This construction leads to the hierarchy of Turing degrees, which classify sets of natural numbers based on their mutual reducibility via Turing machines. The degree of the halting set, denoted 0', represents the simplest non-recursive degree and is obtained as the Turing jump of the 0; an for 0' enables solving the halting problem, while higher jumps like 0'' address increasingly complex undecidable problems. The theory of Turing degrees, formalized in works building on oracle concepts, demonstrates that undecidability is relative: problems unsolvable in lower degrees become solvable with stronger . Hypercomputation encompasses theoretical models of computation that surpass the limits of Turing machines, often by invoking infinite processes or non-standard resources, though these remain purely mathematical constructs without physical instantiation. Infinite-time Turing machines (ITTMs) generalize Turing machines to run for transfinite ordinal times, allowing computations to continue through limit stages where the tape state stabilizes after infinitely many steps. ITTMs can solve the halting problem for ordinary Turing machines by simulating them over ordinal time until a halting configuration is reached or a non-halting limit is detected. Accelerating Turing machines, another hypercomputational model, perform supertasks by completing infinitely many steps in finite real time through successively faster execution rates, akin to but resolved via acceleration. In this framework, often illustrated with "accelerating " progressing at halving time intervals yet covering infinite computational ground, the queries an oracle-like at the supertask's completion to decide halting instances that standard machines cannot. These models highlight theoretical extensions but rely on idealized infinite precision and speed. Zeno machines formalize explicitly, executing steps in halving time units (e.g., 1/2^n seconds for the nth step) to complete an infinite computation in finite duration, such as one second. A Zeno machine can solve the halting problem by simulating the target through all possible steps within the supertask and observing the final state. However, Zeno machines face their own halting problem, as determining whether a Zeno program completes its supertask remains undecidable within the model. The relativization of the halting problem in these models underscores that undecidability is not absolute but depends on the computational framework: oracles and hypermachines "solve" it by assuming extra power, yet each introduces new undecidable questions at higher levels. Philosophically, the physical realizability of hypercomputation sparks debate, as supertasks like those in Zeno or accelerating models violate constraints of finite energy, space, and time in known physics. The Church-Turing thesis posits that no physically realizable device exceeds Turing-computable functions, critiquing hypercomputation as non-physical and thus irrelevant to effective computation.

References

  1. https://www.teach.cs.toronto.edu/~ajr/236/day/notes/halting.html
  2. https://www.cs.virginia.edu/~robins/Turing_Paper_1936.pdf
  3. https://www.cs.rochester.edu/u/nelson/courses/csc_173/computability/undecidable.html
  4. https://cs.wellesley.edu/~cs251/s21/notes/halt.html
  5. https://archive.org/details/bwb_S0-AWJ-083
  6. https://doi.org/10.1112/plms/s2-42.1.230
  7. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/turing-machine/
  8. http://theory.stanford.edu/~trevisan/cs154-12/turing-machines-1.pdf
  9. https://zoo.cs.yale.edu/classes/cs201/topics/topic-TM.pdf
  10. https://doi.org/10.2307/2268280
  11. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/church-turing/
  12. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/church-turing/decision-problem.html
  13. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/goedel-incompleteness/
  14. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/church/
  15. https://www.cis.upenn.edu/~jean/old511/html/Spring04/cis511sl78.pdf
  16. https://courses.grainger.illinois.edu/ece579/sp2016/recursive_functions.pdf
  17. https://jeffe.cs.illinois.edu/teaching/algorithms/models/07-undecidable.pdf
  18. https://cs.gmu.edu/~gordon/teaching/cs600/turing_machines.pdf
  19. https://people.computing.clemson.edu/~goddard/texts/theoryOfComputation/14b.pdf
  20. https://courses.grainger.illinois.edu/cs373/sp2009/lectures/lect_21.pdf
  21. https://www.andrew.cmu.edu/user/avigad/Teaching/halting.pdf
  22. https://math.berkeley.edu/~marks/notes/computability_notes_v1.pdf
  23. https://arxiv.org/abs/1812.00990
  24. https://www.ams.org/journals/tran/1953-074-02/S0002-9947-1953-0053041-6/S0002-9947-1953-0053041-6.pdf
  25. https://users.cs.duke.edu/~reif/courses/complectures/Busch/UndecidabilityReductions.pdf
  26. https://mathweb.ucsd.edu/~sbuss/CourseWeb/Math260_2012WS/Apr11_Sato.pdf
  27. https://www.cs.umd.edu/~gasarch/COURSES/452/S21/slides/dectalk.pdf
  28. https://arxiv.org/pdf/2211.13532
  29. https://people.math.ethz.ch/~halorenz/4students/Literatur/TuringOrdinalLogic.pdf
  30. https://math.berkeley.edu/~antonio/papers/Tdegrees.pdf
  31. https://arxiv.org/pdf/math/9808093
  32. https://research.cs.queensu.ca/TechReports/Reports/2006-510.pdf
  33. https://arxiv.org/pdf/cs/0412022
  34. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/220636735_A_Brief_Critique_of_Pure_Hypercomputation
Add your contribution
Related Hubs
Contribute something
User Avatar
No comments yet.