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 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: References: 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: 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