AI Horizon: Intelligence and Reason in Computers
Introduction Home Essays Resources Contact Info
  Basic CS
General AI
Chess AI

  Source Code
AI Tips and Tricks

  Code Journal
Site Updates

An Affiliate of

What we Cannot Know: the Halting Problem
(By Alexander Allain of Your Resource for C/C++ Programming)

One of the most interesting non-programming parts of computer science is the study of what can (and cannot) be computed. For instance, take the question, "does this program complete?" I.e., will it not go into an infinite loop. How would you answer this question, given an arbitrary piece of code? You could try running it. But what if it takes a long time? How long are you willing to wait?

Think about whether there is a general solution to this problem -- a method that you could apply to any piece of C code in order to demonstrate that it will eventually come to a stop.

Let's say that you discovered such a solution. It's a program that takes two arguments: the code for a program, and its input. This solution returns true if the program halts on the given input, and false if the program runs forever. Let's call this program DOES-HALT. We can use DOES-HALT as follows:
DOES-HALT(program, input)

Now, given DOES-HALT, let's see what kinds of cool things we can do. Well, we can pass in the code of any program that's been running for a long time and ensure that it's working. This could certainly prove useful for complex programs implementing a great deal of recursion or with complicated loop conditions.

We could also use DOES-HALT to quickly compute whether or not a program passes its test cases. This is a little bit trickier. How could we use DOES-HALT to determine if a program produces the correct output for a specific input? Keep in mind that DOES-HALT does just that -- it halts. So what if we constructed a second program, let's call it COMPARE-OUTPUT, that would take three arguments: a program, the input to the program, and the expected output. Here's the key: COMPARE-OUTPUT will halt when the output of the program is the same as the expected output, and it will go into an infinite loop otherwise. Now, all we need to do is run DOES-HALT(COMPARE-OUTPUT, [program, input, expected output]) to know whether or not program passes the test case, input, and outputs the expected output. If it halts, well, it does; otherwise, it doesn't!

Think of the time such a program might save us for testing complex algorithms!

Let's look at some of the other consequences. In particular, what if we decided we wanted to write a program that would test what happens when we run a program on itself as input. For instance, the *nix program cat, when run on itself, would output the binary executable file. Some programs might never halt when run on themselves, though -- so let's use DOES-HALT to write pseudo-code for a program that checks to see what happens when a program is given itself as input. let's call it SELF-HALT, and SELF-HALT will halt if the input program would *not* halt on itself.
    if(DOES-HALT(program, program))
        infinite loop
This code is pretty straight forward: if the program would halt on itself, then SELF-HALT goes into an infinite loop. Otherwise, it halts.

This is pretty nifty because we can use it to tell whether a program that is designed to analyze other programs (for instance, DOES-HALT) will actually halt when given itself as input.

In fact, what if we use SELF-HALT to analyze itself? Well, let's see. SELF-HALT(SELF-HALT) should loop forever if DOES-HALT(SELF-HALT, SELF-HALT). So if SELF-HALT halts on itself, it should loop forever.

That doesn't make sense, so DOES-HALT(SELF-HALT, SELF-HALT) must be false. SELF-HALT(SELF-HALT) must not halt. But if DOES-HALT(SELF-HALT, SELF-HALT) is false, SELF-HALT(SELF-HALT) must halt! A contradiction.

So where does this leave us? There's nothing inherently wrong with our SELF-HALT program; it's structure is just fine. Everything we pass as arugments is perfectly reasonable as well. In fact, the only thing that looks at all questionable is this DOES-HALT program we've been using.

In fact, the above argument is essentially a proof that the halting problem, as it is termed, cannot be solved in the general case. No DOES-HALT program exists. If it did, we would be able to generate contradictions such as the above -- a program that halts when it should loop forever, and that loops forever when it halts.

All content is written and published by the people at or affiliated with AI Horizon <>.
Send any comments and suggestions to [email protected].

Please report any errors to [email protected].