# An Intuitive Understanding of The Halting Problem

One of the fundamental results from computer science is The Halting Problem, which roughly stated, says that there is no general way to determine whether a given program with a given input will either terminate in a finite time, or run forever.

`10 PRINT "HELLO"`

20 END

*Fig 1: A program which halts*

`10 PRINT "HELLO"`

20 GOTO 10

*Fig 2: A program which never halts*

It has been formally proved that there is no general solution to the Halting Problem — that is, there is no algorithm which can analyse *every* program and tell you for sure whether it halts or not. If you are a programmer, this sounds like a depressing result. Much of software engineering practice is devoted to the reduction of bugs — but what chance do you have of proving that your program returns the right answer, if in general you can’t even prove that it terminates?

However, whilst the Halting Problem proof is undeniably valid, I also found it to be unsatisfying. For one thing, it uses a contrived pathological example to create a contradiction. There are *some* programs which cannot be proved to terminate or not, but clearly there are programs which can (such as the examples at the top of this article). Furthermore, my experience tells me that infinite loops are very rarely a problem in real programs. Is there an underlying reason why some programs cannot be analysed in this way?

A deeper understanding came to me when I realised that some hard mathematical problems can be expressed as Halting Problems.

# Fermat’s Last Theorem as a Halting Problem

Fermat’s Last Theorem states that for positive integers *a*, *b*, *c* and *n*, there are no values for n≥3 which satisfy the equation

a

^n+b^n=c^n

This theorem was first proposed in 1637, but a proof eluded mathematicians for hundreds of years. It was finally solved in 1994, requiring the development of whole new branches of mathematics.

However, this theorem can also be reformulated directly as a Halting Problem (here in Python¹):

`import itertools, sys`

for limit in itertools.count(3): # count from 3 to infinity

for a in range(1, limit+1):

for b in range(1, limit+1):

for c in range(1, limit+1):

for n in range(3, limit+1):

if a**n + b**n == c**n:

sys.exit(0)

This simple program comprises five nested loops, one condition, and no input. But if you can tell by inspection whether it halts or not, then you have also proved (or disproved) Fermat’s Last Theorem!

The program as written is “unoptimised”, in the sense that it will often re-test the same combinations of *a*, *b*, *c* and *n*, but that doesn’t matter here. It’s very easy to prove that it always makes progress (each inner loop takes a finite amount of time, bounded by “*limit*”), and that every combination of *a*, *b*, *c* and *n* will eventually be tested (in the outer loop iteration where `limit = max(a,b,c,n)`

)

What we care about is whether it could ever possibly halt, and that’s exactly the same as proving or disproving Fermat’s Last Theorem.

There are other mathematical theorems of the form “there is no X which satisfies Y”, some of which I expect could also be expressed as Halting Problems; so if there were a general algorithm which could examine any program and tell you whether or not it halts, it would solve those problems at a stroke too.

Put another way: a solution to the Halting Problem, if it existed, would necessarily make much of mathematics (and mathematicians) obsolete. And for me, this makes it easier to understand why a solution cannot exist.

[1] Note that in Python, `range(x, y)`

iterates over values from x up to *but not including* y.