Warning: mysqli::__construct(): (HY000/1203): User howardkn already has more than 'max_user_connections' active connections in D:\Inetpub\vhosts\howardknight.net\al.howardknight.net\includes\artfuncs.php on line 21
Failed to connect to MySQL: (1203) User howardkn already has more than 'max_user_connections' active connectionsPath: ...!news.mixmin.net!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: olcott Newsgroups: comp.theory Subject: Re: Termination analyzer defined ---RICHARD IS WRONG !!! Date: Fri, 17 May 2024 10:53:33 -0500 Organization: A noiseless patient Spider Lines: 210 Message-ID: References: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Injection-Date: Fri, 17 May 2024 17:53:35 +0200 (CEST) Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="269f5d410d08e21225230cab72194d27"; logging-data="2387052"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/F9dHjI08cPsLjXj7K4Xjs" User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Cancel-Lock: sha1:peMVT6iPGCnyC/gjRHgn1GWZFTE= In-Reply-To: Content-Language: en-US Bytes: 10295 On 5/17/2024 3:58 AM, Mikko wrote: > On 2024-05-16 14:08:50 +0000, olcott said: > >> On 5/16/2024 4:59 AM, Mikko wrote: >>> On 2024-05-15 14:52:01 +0000, olcott said: >>> >>>> On 5/15/2024 2:53 AM, Mikko wrote: >>>>> On 2024-05-14 14:10:47 +0000, olcott said: >>>>> >>>>>> On 5/14/2024 4:28 AM, Mikko wrote: >>>>>>> On 2024-05-13 14:42:05 +0000, olcott said: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On 5/13/2024 4:06 AM, Mikko wrote: >>>>>>>>> On 2024-05-12 17:12:00 +0000, olcott said: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> On 5/12/2024 10:27 AM, Mikko wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> On 2024-05-12 13:59:28 +0000, olcott said: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/12/2024 3:45 AM, Mikko wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2024-05-11 16:35:48 +0000, olcott said: >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/11/2024 4:39 AM, Mikko wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> You are doing a great job performing an honest review! >>>>>>>>>>>>>> So every time that Richard referred to a {termination >>>>>>>>>>>>>> analyzer} that >>>>>>>>>>>>>> ignores its inputs *Richard was WRONG* >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> More important is that you are wrong whenever you use >>>>>>>>>>>>> "termination >>>>>>>>>>>>> analyser" for something that by the conventional meaning >>>>>>>>>>>>> isn't. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> A conventional termination analyzer is free to use any >>>>>>>>>>>> algorithm >>>>>>>>>>>> as long as it analyzes termination. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> It is not sufficient to analyse something about termination. The >>>>>>>>>>> conventional meaning is that a termination analyser does not say >>>>>>>>>>> "yes" unless the analysed program terminates with every possible >>>>>>>>>>> input. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> A specific program halts with every input is not at all the same >>>>>>>>>> thing as correctly analyzing every program with every input. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> If you can't find out whether a program halts with every input >>>>>>>>> even >>>>>>>>> after analyzing it with every input your analysis is not really >>>>>>>>> good enough for the purpose. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Anyway, if an analyzer can never tell whether a program terminates >>>>>>>>> with every possible input then it is not a termination analyzer. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> My simple termination analyzer easily determines whether or not >>>>>>>> the limited class of programs that are in its domain halt on >>>>>>>> every input. For example D() only has three classes of inputs >>>>>>>> (a) Inputs that halt >>>>>>>> (b) Inputs that do not halt >>>>>>>> (c) itself. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> If you can prove that it never gives a wrong "yes" answer >>>>>>> you can call it a "termination analyzer". Even better if >>>>>>> you can prove that it never gives a "yes" answer for an >>>>>>> invalid input. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> However, it is not useful if it does not say "yes" about any useful >>>>>>> or interesting program. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Because it is a termination analyzer it need not work for >>>>>>>> all programs. A partial halt decider with a limited domain >>>>>>>> seems to be the equivalent theory of computation terminology. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> A partial halt decider is not a termination analyzer. Their input >>>>>>> spaces are distinct. >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> It correctly determines the halt status YES or NO >>>>>> for a specific limited set of programs and ALL of >>>>>> the inputs to this limited infinite set of programs. >>>>> >>>>> The important difference is that a partial halting decider takes >>>>> a pair (progam, input) for input but a halting analyzer takes >>>>> a singlet (program). >>>>> >>>> >>>> One can analyze whether a specific program will halt with a specific >>>> input. >>> >>> However, there is no way to ensure that the answer is ever found. >>> >> >> For the C version and the Turing machine version of the halting problem >> template an answer found. > > That is a very restricted set of programs that are not very interesting. > If refuting the halting problem proofs is not very interesting then what is interesting? > It is not sufficient that an answer must be given. There must be a > proof that the wrong answer is never given. For programs outside of > the domain and non-programs given as programs an answer that is > neither "yes" or "no" is permitted. > *Not at all. Not in the least little bit* For the H/D pairs comprising the halting problem counter-example all that needs be shown is that one of YES or NO the correct answer. I am not making an ALL KNOWING computer program that solves the halting problem. I am making a program that refutes the conventional halting problem proofs. >>>> This is especially important when the received view is that a >>>> specific program cannot possibly handle a specific input correctly. >>> >>> It is easy to try a specifc program with a specific input and see >>> what happens, >> >> *The prior answer from the "received view" has always been no one knows* >> >> It has always been the case in the "received view" that because the >> pathological input D was defined to contradict every value that its >> termination analyzer H returns that both YES and NO are the wrong >> answer from H. > ========== REMAINDER OF ARTICLE TRUNCATED ==========