Halting Problem A Jewish Coverup?

What else could keep the goyim from discovering powerful algorithms than to keep them from even trying?

Destroy the economy so much that non-jews can't even afford a computer and the government can't support their public school making only the jewish master race able to send their children to private schools

>>2
Yes, but even the Jews know that they can't compete with the scientific brilliance of goy cattle. They can only use their intelligence to subvert. They need us as a race of educated slaves so that they can reap the benefits of all the work. Sure, there are a few scientifically smart Jews, but they mainly work to distract from the over-arching plan to herd the goyim along the Jewish path.

fuck turing

Back to /b/ please.

>>1
>>3
Fuck YOU JEW MOTHERFUCKER, GO AWAY GO BACK TO ISRAEL YOU STUPID JEWSIH FUCKFART!

>>5
Back to Israel, kike.

>>6
I am not a Jew, I am simply trying to question the jewish conspiracies that have so intricatated their way into our societies thinking. You seem to have been infected too, as you accuse me of Jewery when I only seek to exterminate the Jews.

just like infinity!

If you have a problem with the proof, you can try to address it.

>>10
arguing with jews
Bad move.

Trivially true, but not really limiting on "what you can do". Just a trivial consequence of recursion theory. You're being stupid if you think not being able to solve the halting problem for all cases, correctly, given a single algorithm means you can't solve it for particular cases that interest you, given the right assumptions.
Also, worth noting that if the halting problem was generally solvable by an algorithm, then you could prove (Peano) arithmetic's consistency (or inconsistency) in itself, which would make it inconsistent (among many other weird things being true in that case), but I'm not going to bother discussing this further since you seem to have expressed your dislike of axiomatic theories before.

Peano
Sounds like a Jewish surname.

int main(void){
for(int i = 0; i < 10; i++) if (i == 4) break;
return 0; // <<<<--- code will halt here
}

Was that really so fucking hard?

/prog/ - Jews

Piano Arithmedick

>>13
Three names for arithmatic in/conistency: Charles Sanders Peirce, American (Episcopal Church according to Wikipedia); Julius Wilhelm Richard Dedekind, "the Germany of WWI"; and, Giuseppe Peano, Italian.  Peano's brother was a priest and his parents were farmers, at least that's what gleaming a paper encyclopedia tells me; I don't know anything about him.

If you want to split hairs, Dedekind was one of the founders of set theory.  Peano did some work with sets but he's not usually given contribution.

can we get better than O(1)?

>>18
O(i).

>>18
O(0) will only be realized when we have mastered both religion and science and applied each one to the other.

>>18
O(1/n):

int f(int n) {
  int i;

  for (i = 0; i < 1000000 / n; ++i);

  return n;
}

>>21
what if n=0?

>>22
Then the run time is O(0)

>>22
Then it will crash. It's still O(1/n), if that's what you're asking. The definition of big O only requires the runtime to be within the bounds for all n greater than some arbitrary number, not for all n. Meaning that the function's behavior around n = 0 doesn't matter when determining the runtime.

>>21
Although, assuming that is straight C, that technically isn't O(1/n), because as soon as n > 1000000, then it takes the same amount of time to execute regardless of n, and becomes O(1). If it was some special computer that could stall for an infinitely precise amount of time, and if it could invoke a program without using any time at all, then it would be though.

>>25
as soon as n > 1000000, then it takes the same amount of time to execute regardless of n, and becomes O(1)
Yeah, I just didn't feel like getting into all that.

and if it could invoke a program without using any time at all
I hadn't thought of that. You're right, in any real implementation there will be an O(1) part, so less than O(1) is impossible.

>>26
Yeah, it's hard to find infinite something that takes an arbitrarily small amount of resources to run as the input gets larger. But I have seen O(1/n) used for describing things like numerical error, where the size of the error would O(1/n), where n is the number of iterators performed, or something of the like.

*it's hard to find something*

>>27
scratch that, not numerical error, but a closed form expression that approximates something that doesn't have a known exact closed form expression.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stirling's_approximation