|
|
>> Right. And the fact that a mathematical proof of its impossibility
>> doesn't matter either, right?
>
> Mathematical proofs have been proven wrong before, you know.
Yes - but it's really extremely rare. Especially for very simple proofs.
The ones that turn out to be wrong are usually the highly complex ones.
>> How many years do you think it will be before somebody solves the
>> halting problem, or develops a lossless compression algorithm with an
>> infinite compression ratio?
>
> Who knows? Technology evolves over time. Even 10 years ago, the idea of
> having a computer the size of a notebook that was as powerful as a then-
> current Cray supercomputer? Yet here we are.
>
> Can they be solved using current computing technologies? Probably not.
> Can they be solved with something that makes our current technology look
> like a toy? Possibly. Who knows?
See, that's just it. The halting problem is unsolvable in a theoretical
computer with an infinite amount of memory, allowed to run for an
infinite amount of time. It's not a question of computers not being
"powerful enough", the problem is unsolvable even theoretically.
Unless quantum computing ever works some day, and it turns out to have
_fundamentally_ different capabilities, the halting problem will never
be solved.
The impossibility of a lossless compression algorithm with an infinite
compression ratio doesn't even depend on the model of computing used; it
is a trivial exercise in logic.
> My point, though, is that there are people - even exceptionally smart
> people - who say "no way no how is 'x' ever going to be possible" and
> they're proven wrong. Maybe not in their lifetimes, but who's to say
> what's really possible?
And *my* point is that some things are "impossible" because nobody has
yet figured out how, while other things are "impossible" because they
defy the laws of causality. And there's a rather bit difference.
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|