On 8/2/25 11:07 AM, olcott wrote:
On 8/2/2025 8:17 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 8/2/25 12:36 AM, Mr Flibble wrote:
Olcott seems to have pivoted from halt deciders to termination
analysers.
I think he knows he is sinking in his 22 year high pile of BS.
/Flibble
He did that a while ago, because he misread a paper that made him
think that Termination Analyzers only needed to be right for one
input, instead of all inputs.
They need to be right for all of the inputs for
"A given program".
No, you miss read the statement. A given instance is given a specific
program to decide on.
The "given program" has no restrictions on it, so it can be given ANY
program, and thus the algorithm needs to be correct for ALL to be a full termination analyzer, what the unadorned term technically refers to
(thos some informal usage will imply partial from context),
In computer science, termination analysis is program
analysis which attempts to determine whether the
evaluation of a given program halts for each input. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Termination_analysis
Note later in the article:
The termination analysis is even more difficult than the halting problem
If it only needed to be right about one single program, that wouldn't be
true.
"A given program" is not an infinite set of all programs
your attention deficit disorder strikes again.
You will find similar wording in defintions of the halt decider
This shows the problem with using non-formal sights for your definitions.
"A given program" having no inputs is a single unique
finite string.
Right, so if the program takes no inputs, A terminatation analyzer is
the same thing as a Halt Decider.
Its just that partial Termination Analyzers are quite useful, and so
there is a lot of research on them, and, as it the want for language,
they tend to not use "partial" in all the descriptions, even though it
is in the actual definition at the theoretical level.
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)