🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <10452.Jun1317.26.4791@kramden.acf.nyu.edu> brnstnd@kramden.acf.nyu.edu (Dan Bernstein) writes:
>In article <1991Jun12.194212.21395@clipper.ingr.com> smryan@clipper.ingr.com (Steven Ryan) writes:
>> In article <22012:Jun1205:25:0491@kramden.acf.nyu.edu> brnstnd@kramden.acf.nyu.edu (Dan Bernstein) writes:
>> Your conclusion
>> therefore only applies to bounded programs.
>
>No shit. That's what ``for any given *size*'' means: it's a *bound*.
>(``Welcome to Mr. Rogers' Neighborhood. Can you say `bound'? B-O-U-N-D.
>Bound. Very good, boys and girls. This is a bound.'')
>
>> You have no proof that unbounded
>> programs do not exist.
>
>Sure I do. Computers have finite memory. To determine halting for an IBM
>PC in some state, I need merely hook up another IBM PC and a bit of
>extra hardware, and run both machines a bit slower than usual. To
>determine halting for a given language environment, the interpreter or
>compiler need only duplicate its memory and do a bit of housekeeping.
>This is eminently practical.

	Another point is that there is only a 
	*FINITE*NUMBER* of computers in the universe.
	As "Computers have finite memory", there
	exists a computer CM which has more memory
	than others.
	"Practically", there will be no computer
	to run your program to determine halting
	on that CM.
	You could object that you may "hook up" several
	CM with additional hardware : but there is a finite
	number of networks, and so on.

Also we mortals have a limited amount of time, so ...

M Billaud

	

-- 
Michel BILLAUD                 :  billaud@geocub.greco-prog.fr
Departement d'Informatique     :  
IUT "A", Universite Bordeaux I :  phone W: 56.84.57.92  // 56.84.69.22
33405 Talence  (FRANCE)        :        H: 56.36.65.90 (answering mach.)