XPost: sci.logic

On 5/10/24 8:59 PM, olcott wrote:

On 5/10/2024 7:30 PM, olcott wrote:

A termination analyzer is different than a halt decider in that it need
not correctly determine the halt status of every input. For the purposes
of this paper a termination analyzer only needs to correctly determine
the halt status of one terminating input and one non-terminating input.
The computer science equivalent would be a halt decider with a limited
domain that includes at least one halting and one non-halting input.

So all the people that said termination analyzer WAS NOT DEFINED
never meant that termination analyzer WAS NOT DEFINED. They all
meant that it was not defined well enough directly in my paper
even though it it a current term-of-the-art.

Do you have a reference which uses that definition?

Not just something you said yourself?

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

XPost: sci.logic

On 5/10/24 8:30 PM, olcott wrote:

A termination analyzer is different than a halt decider in that it need
not correctly determine the halt status of every input. For the purposes
of this paper a termination analyzer only needs to correctly determine
the halt status of one terminating input and one non-terminating input.
The computer science equivalent would be a halt decider with a limited
domain that includes at least one halting and one non-halting input.

So, a Termination Analyzer that simulates 1 step and returns non-halting
if it doesn't halt at that point is a correct termination analyzer?

There is at least one halting program it gets correct, and a lot of
non-halting program it gets correct.

Doesn't sound like a very useful sort of machine.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

XPost: sci.logic

On 5/10/24 10:27 PM, olcott wrote:

On 5/10/2024 9:17 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 5/10/24 8:30 PM, olcott wrote:

A termination analyzer is different than a halt decider in that it need
not correctly determine the halt status of every input. For the purposes >>> of this paper a termination analyzer only needs to correctly determine
the halt status of one terminating input and one non-terminating input.
The computer science equivalent would be a halt decider with a limited
domain that includes at least one halting and one non-halting input.

So, a Termination Analyzer that simulates 1 step and returns
non-halting if it doesn't halt at that point is a correct termination
analyzer?

The term *termination analyzer* is well defined in the art.
Honest people would understand that a *simulating termination analyzer*
must have ALL of the properties of a *termination analyzer*.

Then you can point to published definitons that match yours?

Since you deflected that request, my guess is you can't.

There is at least one halting program it gets correct, and a lot of
non-halting program it gets correct.

Doesn't sound like a very useful sort of machine.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

XPost: sci.logic

On 5/10/24 10:52 PM, olcott wrote:

On 5/10/2024 9:39 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 5/10/24 10:27 PM, olcott wrote:

On 5/10/2024 9:17 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 5/10/24 8:30 PM, olcott wrote:

A termination analyzer is different than a halt decider in that it
need
not correctly determine the halt status of every input. For the
purposes
of this paper a termination analyzer only needs to correctly determine >>>>> the halt status of one terminating input and one non-terminating
input.
The computer science equivalent would be a halt decider with a limited >>>>> domain that includes at least one halting and one non-halting input. >>>>>

So, a Termination Analyzer that simulates 1 step and returns
non-halting if it doesn't halt at that point is a correct
termination analyzer?

The term *termination analyzer* is well defined in the art.
Honest people would understand that a *simulating termination analyzer*
must have ALL of the properties of a *termination analyzer*.

Then you can point to published definitons that match yours?

Now that I know that when people say that a term is undefined
they never meant that it is actually undefined I can fix this.

So, you are admitting that you LIED that your "definition" was the "term-of-art" definition?

Since you deflected that request, my guess is you can't.

There is at least one halting program it gets correct, and a lot of
non-halting program it gets correct.

Doesn't sound like a very useful sort of machine.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

XPost: sci.logic

On 5/10/24 11:25 PM, olcott wrote:

On 5/10/2024 10:16 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 5/10/24 10:52 PM, olcott wrote:

On 5/10/2024 9:39 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 5/10/24 10:27 PM, olcott wrote:

On 5/10/2024 9:17 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 5/10/24 8:30 PM, olcott wrote:

A termination analyzer is different than a halt decider in that
it need
not correctly determine the halt status of every input. For the
purposes
of this paper a termination analyzer only needs to correctly
determine
the halt status of one terminating input and one non-terminating >>>>>>> input.
The computer science equivalent would be a halt decider with a
limited
domain that includes at least one halting and one non-halting input. >>>>>>>

So, a Termination Analyzer that simulates 1 step and returns
non-halting if it doesn't halt at that point is a correct
termination analyzer?

The term *termination analyzer* is well defined in the art.
Honest people would understand that a *simulating termination
analyzer*
must have ALL of the properties of a *termination analyzer*.

Then you can point to published definitons that match yours?

Now that I know that when people say that a term is undefined
they never meant that it is actually undefined I can fix this.

So, you are admitting that you LIED that your "definition" was the
"term-of-art" definition?

*Termination analyzer* is a well defined term-of-the art.
No termination analyzer is ever allowed to ignore all of
its input.

So still not showing a source of your definition.

I guess this just proves you are pulling it out of your flaiming *ss.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

XPost: sci.logic

Op 11.mei.2024 om 02:30 schreef olcott:

A termination analyzer is different than a halt decider in that it need
not correctly determine the halt status of every input. For the purposes
of this paper a termination analyzer only needs to correctly determine
the halt status of one terminating input and one non-terminating input.
The computer science equivalent would be a halt decider with a limited
domain that includes at least one halting and one non-halting input.

Is this the complete definition?
So, if something returns true if the input string has an even number of characters and returns false it it is an odd number of characters, it is
a termination analyzer according to this definition?
If not, then this is not a correct definition. A correct definition is
needed.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 2024-05-11 00:30:40 +0000, olcott said:

A termination analyzer is different than a halt decider in that it need
not correctly determine the halt status of every input. For the purposes
of this paper a termination analyzer only needs to correctly determine
the halt status of one terminating input and one non-terminating input.
The computer science equivalent would be a halt decider with a limited
domain that includes at least one halting and one non-halting input.

From https://www.google.fi/search?q=termination+analysis and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Termination_analysis :

"In computer science, termination analysis is program analysis which
attempts to determine whether the evaluation of a given program halts
for each input. This means to determine whether the input program
computes a total function."

So the term "termination analysis" is already defined. The derived term "termination analyzer" means a performer of termination analysis. That
does not agree with the propsed defintion above so a differnt term
should be used.

That "termination analysis" is a know term that need not be defined
is demostrated e.g. by

https://arxiv.org/pdf/2101.09783

which simply assumes that readers know (at least approximately) what
the term means.

--
Mikko

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

XPost: sci.logic

On 5/11/24 1:04 AM, olcott wrote:

On 5/10/2024 10:16 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 5/10/24 10:59 PM, olcott wrote:

On 5/10/2024 9:39 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 5/10/24 10:24 PM, olcott wrote:

On 5/10/2024 9:16 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 5/10/24 8:59 PM, olcott wrote:

On 5/10/2024 7:30 PM, olcott wrote:

A termination analyzer is different than a halt decider in that >>>>>>>> it need
not correctly determine the halt status of every input. For the >>>>>>>> purposes
of this paper a termination analyzer only needs to correctly
determine
the halt status of one terminating input and one non-terminating >>>>>>>> input.
The computer science equivalent would be a halt decider with a >>>>>>>> limited
domain that includes at least one halting and one non-halting
input.

So all the people that said termination analyzer WAS NOT DEFINED >>>>>>> never meant that termination analyzer WAS NOT DEFINED. They all
meant that it was not defined well enough directly in my paper
even though it it a current term-of-the-art.

Do you have a reference which uses that definition?

Not just something you said yourself?

Now that I understand that ALL of the people that said my terms
were undefined NEVER meant that they were actually undefined I
can fix this.

Still don't understand universal qualifiers.

*ALL D simulated by H*
does not include
*SOME D NEVER simulated by H*

All cows running around in a pasture includes ZERO dead cows.

But simulating zero steps *IS* simulating ALL your steps simulated
correctly.

Yes and a dead cow might stampede into your house.
I make sure to never lie because of Revelations 21:8.

You have LONG passed that point it seems.

Just recently, how many times have you insisted that you statement that
no H can simulate D to past line 3, when you have been told it can, and
thus your statement is a LIE without even the possible excuse of an
honest mistake, since you don't believe your statement enough to take up
the challenge to make me show you where you are wrong.

Since you have doubts in your statement, you can't truthfully claim it
must be true.

I construe Revelations 21:8 to include women that
consistently lie about their weight by one pound.

Yep, if they haven't been forgiven by the acceptance of Jesus Christ.


Note, it doesn't matter what YOU believe, it matters what it actually
means to the judge that will apply it.

If this is the case then lying for trollish head
games would be also included, so I never lie.

You lie to yourself about not lying. You have shown that you just don't understand what truth is, which makes it hard not to lie.

And, you don't understand that "ALL D Simulated by H" isn't a property
of D, or even H, but of problems looked at.

You are just showing you don't understand how english grammer works,
because you are too stupid.

Since SOME people (like me) have said that you didn't define your
terms, you can't use vacous meanings.

I guess since your replay to asking for a reference was a
deflection, you are just admitting that this was just a Olcott
invention, like most of your "verified facts" that are just your own
made up LIES.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

XPost: sci.logic

On 11/05/24 02:30, olcott wrote:

A termination analyzer is different than a halt decider in that it need
not correctly determine the halt status of every input. For the purposes
of this paper a termination analyzer only needs to correctly determine
the halt status of one terminating input and one non-terminating input.
The computer science equivalent would be a halt decider with a limited
domain that includes at least one halting and one non-halting input.

The halting problem asks whether there is a program that does correctly determine the halt status of every input. If there are no halt deciders
and only termination analyzers, the answer is "no".

By the way, this is a termination analyzer in C:

bool terminates(ptr program, ptr input) {
return !memcmp(program, "SQUIRREL", 8);
}

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)