Darren New wrote:

> That's possible. But it certainly isn't obviously true. If the 
> super-computer isn't programmed in the usual way, or if (for example) it 
> can execute an infinite number of instructions in finite time, or if it 
> can travel back in time, or etc, I expect you'd have to think hard about 
> whether that gets around the technique the halting problem proof uses.
> 
> If your super-computer cannot, for example, have its programs 
> represented as input to itself (i.e., you can't create a universal 
> super-computer), then the halting problem isn't even *defined* for that 
> type of computer.

I implicitly assumed that any machine that can't process it's own 
program isn't worthy of the title "computer", that's all. ;-) But yes, I 
see what you're saying.

As for being able to perform infinite instructions in finite time... 
surely that just makes it even *harder* to predict what the machine will 
od, no?

-- 
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*

Post a reply to this message