**Running Perl Versus Analyzing It**

bryan d foy (the TPR editor) and I hacked on the first paragraph of this article right up to the deadline, and I'm not 100% happy with one aspect of the result. You could read the first paragraph to imply there is one way you can always figure out what Perl code is going to do: Simply run it and see what happens. As the series goes on to make clear, that is false. It's false because Perl doesn't necessarily halt, either in the parse phase or the run phase. And because you can't solve the Halting Problem, you also can't analyze Perl to decide if it will halt.

If a Perl program is taking a very long time, in the general case there is no way you can know whether it will ever finish. So running a Perl program does **not** tell you what a program will do, just what it has done done so far. This is not just a theoretical quibble. Not knowing when and if you'll ever get your answer is a huge obstacle in practice.

In practice, static analysis of Perl is a very different beast from running the program. But from the point of view of theoretically impossible or possible, there is no hard and fast difference between analyzing code and running it. If you think about it, you'll realize that as you analyze code more and more, you reach the point where you're simulating the code, and execution of code is execution of code, whether you are simulating or not. Everything which is impossible to discover by running code is impossible to discover by analyzing code and vice versa.

## Turing did not Formulate the Halting Problem

On page 25, column 1, paragraph 2, the article states what had been repeated even by the most authoritative sources for years: that Alan Turing formulated the Halting Problem. It's become clear since this article came out that Turing did **not** formulate the Halting problem. Jack Copeland seems to be responsible for pointing this out (see his *The Essential Turing,* Oxford 2004, p. 40). According to Copeland, Martin Davis was probably the first person to restate Turing's results as the Halting Problem.

Before Copeland, it was standard even for scholarly sources to misattribute the Halting Problem to Turing. (As one example, see John Stillwell's highly praised *Mathematics and Its History, Second Edition*. Springer 2002, p. 469.) This is one case of a general problem -- mathematicians are surprisingly poor historians. It's not at all unusual to find a book which presents the math with excruciating care for two hundred pages, but which in its "historical" section trades largely in hearsay and rumor.

This makes things very dangerous for those of us writing about math. Now, I've never even seen Cantor's original paper with his Diagonal Proof, not even in translation. But I feel entitled to attribute it to him, relying on the fact that the Diagonal Proof has repeatedly been attributed to Cantor by any number of highly expert mathematical writers. Unfortunately, given the current state of affairs in mathematical history, it would not surprise me in the least to discover some day the Diagonal Proof is not, in fact, Cantor's.

## Typos

**Page 23, column 1, the first line in the text:** Typo. "If" should be "if".

**Page 25, column 2, last sentence in the first paragraph of the "About the Author" section:** Typo. "the author the of" should be "the author of".