Path: ...!feeds.phibee-telecom.net!3.eu.feeder.erje.net!feeder.erje.net!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: olcott <polcott333@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: sci.logic,comp.theory
Subject: Re: Termination analyzer defined
Date: Fri, 10 May 2024 22:22:47 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 74
Message-ID: <v1moa7$1qr5e$2@dont-email.me>
References: <v1me7i$1l6ut$1@dont-email.me> <v1mftm$1lgcc$1@dont-email.me>
 <v1mke2$lbo5$6@i2pn2.org> <v1mks9$1q5ee$2@dont-email.me>
 <v1mlpv$lbo4$5@i2pn2.org> <v1mmun$1qip9$3@dont-email.me>
 <v1mnu3$lbo5$9@i2pn2.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Date: Sat, 11 May 2024 05:22:48 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="4d0dff08c358270f818af19f82bcfe8c";
	logging-data="1928366"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/eU9Bs93l6w4z3hWmyB+cz"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:PUwCUwhIMDt6sMolUXXP07fd0gw=
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <v1mnu3$lbo5$9@i2pn2.org>
Bytes: 3715

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.
> 

LIAR LIAR PANTS ON FIRE

> 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.
>>>
>>
> 

-- 
Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer