停止问题的解决方案？ [英] Solution to the halting Problem?
问题描述
" Peter Olcott" <醇**** @ worldnet.att.net>在消息中写道
news：qG ********************* @ bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net ...www.halting-problem.com
偏离主题，但我会咬人。
我去那个链接期待比我发现的更多。我期待一个
非常彻底的证明，证明停止问题有一个缺陷。我保持
重新阅读页面，因为我以为我错过了一些东西。我想
我没有，因为我找到的只是一种修改或创建程序的方式，所以
可以知道它是否会停止。即便如此，该页面上列出的第二个b
异议表明它并不总是有效。如果我错误地解决了这个问题，那么请随时纠正我。
该页面上的第一个链接非常明确地定义了停机问题：否
程序可以编写，以确定是否任何任意程序将停止
。这里的关键短语是任意的。如果您尝试通过修改代码来反驳
声明，那么您无法声称您的解决方案可以为任意程序工作
。当声明任意时，它意味着任何可能存在的
程序。将所考虑的程序限制为特殊的
案件并不反驳该索赔。任何人都可以很容易地制作特殊情况，确保程序停止。
简而言之，你的断言是可能性创建一个或多个允许LoopIfHalts（）运行的WillHalt（）的
实例不会反映这种方法。是不正确的。 任意的意思是任意。不是b / b
。就像我说的，如果我误解了那个链接试图用什么来表示，请纠正我。我现在很累，而且我可能会错误地解释一些东西。
不错的域名。
-
David Hilsee
2004年7月21日星期三02:38:14 GMT，Peter Olcott ;
< ol **** @ worldnet.att.net>写道：
www.halting-problem.com
这与标准C ++有什么关系？
Tom
" David Hilsee" <哒************* @ yahoo.com>在消息新闻中写道：w5 ******************** @ comcast.com ..." Peter Olcott" <醇**** @ worldnet.att.net>在消息中写道
新闻：qG ********************* @ bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net ...www.halting-problem.com
非主题，但我会咬人。
我去那个链接期待比我发现的更多。我期待一个非常彻底的证据表明停机问题存在缺陷。我一直在重新阅读页面，因为我以为我错过了一些东西。我想
我没有，因为我找到的只是修改或创建程序的一种方式，因此可以知道它是否会停止。即便如此，该页面上列出的第二个反对意见表明它并不总是有效。如果我误解了解决方案，请随时纠正我。
该页面上的第一个链接非常清楚地定义了暂停问题：无法编写程序以确定是否有任意程序将停止。这里的关键短语是任意的。如果您尝试通过修改代码来反驳
声明，那么您无法声称您的解决方案适用于任意程序。
It适用于任何任意程序。它不适用于任何
任意程序。必须更改原始分析仪。现在
每个分析的程序都会导致暂停或不停止，因为解决方案的安全性没有被违反。如果违反了b $ b，那么在此之后已经得到纠正。现在它将与
一起使用它不起作用的程序。
当索赔说明任意时，它意味着任何可能存在的程序。将所考虑的程序限制为特殊情况不会驳斥索赔。任何人都可以很容易地制作确保程序停止的特殊情况。
简而言之，你断言创造一个或多个的可能性。 >允许LoopIfHalts（）起作用的WillHalt（）实例不会反驳这种方法。是不正确的。 任意的意思是任意。不是可以谈判的。就像我说的，如果我误解了那个链接试图说什么，请纠正我。我现在很累，而且我可能误解了一些东西。
不错的领域。
-
David Hilsee
"Peter Olcott" <ol****@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:qG*********************@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...www.halting-problem.com
Off-topic, but I''ll bite.
I went to that link expecting a lot more than I found. I was expecting a
very thorough proof that showed that the Halting Problem had a flaw. I kept
re-reading the page because I thought that I had missed something. I guess
I didn''t, because all I found was a way to modify or create a program so
that it is possible to know if it will halt. Even then, the second
objection listed on that page shows that it doesn''t always work. If I
misunderstood the solution, then feel free to correct me.
The first link on that page defines the halting problem very clearly: No
program can ever be written to determine whether any arbitrary program will
halt. The key phrase here is "any arbitrary." If you try to refute the
claim by modifying the code, then you cannot claim that your solution works
for an arbitrary program. When the claim says arbitrary, it means any
program that could ever exist. Limiting the considered programs to special
cases does not refute the claim. It is very easy for anyone to produce
special cases where it is certain that the program will halt.
In short, your assertion that the "possibility of creating one or more
instances of WillHalt() that permit LoopIfHalts() to function does not
refute this method" is incorrect. The meaning of "any arbitrary" is not
negotiable. Like I said, if I misunderstood what that link was trying to
say, correct me. I''m very tired right now and it''s possible that I
misinterpreted something.
Nice domain, though.
--
David Hilsee
On Wed, 21 Jul 2004 02:38:14 GMT, "Peter Olcott"
<ol****@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
www.halting-problem.com
What''s this got to do with standard C++?
Tom
"David Hilsee" <da*************@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:w5********************@comcast.com..."Peter Olcott" <ol****@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:qG*********************@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...www.halting-problem.com
Off-topic, but I''ll bite.
I went to that link expecting a lot more than I found. I was expecting a
very thorough proof that showed that the Halting Problem had a flaw. I kept
re-reading the page because I thought that I had missed something. I guess
I didn''t, because all I found was a way to modify or create a program so
that it is possible to know if it will halt. Even then, the second
objection listed on that page shows that it doesn''t always work. If I
misunderstood the solution, then feel free to correct me.
The first link on that page defines the halting problem very clearly: No
program can ever be written to determine whether any arbitrary program will
halt. The key phrase here is "any arbitrary." If you try to refute the
claim by modifying the code, then you cannot claim that your solution works
for an arbitrary program.
It works FOR any arbitrary program. It does not work WITH any
arbitrary program. The original analyzer had to be changed. Now
every program analyzed will result in Halting or Not Halting, as long
as the security of the solution has not been violated. If it has been
violated, then after this has been corrected. it will now work with
the program that it did not work for.
When the claim says arbitrary, it means any
program that could ever exist. Limiting the considered programs to special
cases does not refute the claim. It is very easy for anyone to produce
special cases where it is certain that the program will halt.
In short, your assertion that the "possibility of creating one or more
instances of WillHalt() that permit LoopIfHalts() to function does not
refute this method" is incorrect. The meaning of "any arbitrary" is not
negotiable. Like I said, if I misunderstood what that link was trying to
say, correct me. I''m very tired right now and it''s possible that I
misinterpreted something.
Nice domain, though.
--
David Hilsee
这篇关于停止问题的解决方案？的文章就介绍到这了，希望我们推荐的答案对大家有所帮助，也希望大家多多支持IT屋！
