Whenever people ask about the halting problem as it pertains to programming, people respond with \"If you just add one loop, you\'ve got the halting program and therefore yo
In reference to the sub-point "people respond with "If you just add one loop, you've got the halting program and therefore you can't automate task"", I'll add this detail:
The posts that say that you cannot algorithmically compute whether an arbitrary program will halt are absolutely correct for a Turing Machine.
The thing is, not all programs require Turing Machines. These are programs that can be computed with a conceptually "weaker" machine --- for example, regular expressions can be embodied entirely by a Finite State Machine, which always halts on input. Isn't that nice?
I wager that when the people say "add one loop", they're trying to express the idea that, when a program is complex enough, it requires a Turing Machine, and thus the Halting Problem (as an idea) applies.
This may be slightly tangential to the question, but I believe, given that detail in the question, this was worth pointing out. :)