Path: ...!news.mixmin.net!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: =?UTF-8?B?QW5kcsOpIEcuIElzYWFr?= <agisaak@gm.invalid>
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: Can D simulated by H terminate normally?
Date: Wed, 1 May 2024 20:30:27 -0600
Organization: Christians and Atheists United Against Creeping Agnosticism
Lines: 64
Message-ID: <v0uts9$3k5ac$1@dont-email.me>
References: <v0k4jc$laej$1@dont-email.me> <v0lkas$12q0o$3@dont-email.me>
 <v0loq2$2g493$1@i2pn2.org> <v0lq7d$14579$2@dont-email.me>
 <v0ls98$2g492$7@i2pn2.org> <v0m29q$166o1$1@dont-email.me>
 <v0m37e$2gl1e$1@i2pn2.org> <v0m3v5$16k3h$1@dont-email.me>
 <v0m55t$2gl1f$3@i2pn2.org> <v0m5sn$172p4$1@dont-email.me>
 <v0o87n$1p7s5$1@dont-email.me> <v0oab4$1pbn5$3@dont-email.me>
 <v0qh21$2df66$1@dont-email.me> <v0r40q$2hb7o$5@dont-email.me>
 <v0rsbu$2m1nf$7@i2pn2.org> <v0sfrs$2varu$2@dont-email.me>
 <v0t2pv$1iuj$1@news.muc.de> <v0tmv7$37lgj$4@dont-email.me>
 <v0um11$2qov4$2@i2pn2.org> <v0unks$3f7d8$1@dont-email.me>
 <v0ur6c$3fq9a$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Thu, 02 May 2024 04:30:33 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="296d32dede86c15c70add5daa38e0bf2";
	logging-data="3806540"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+RMWGiStUmptrdWxoovIGu"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:T8O/v7GggXBwtva04adZ5yUECDg=
In-Reply-To: <v0ur6c$3fq9a$1@dont-email.me>
Content-Language: en-US
Bytes: 4203

On 2024-05-01 19:44, olcott wrote:
> On 5/1/2024 7:44 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>> On 2024-05-01 18:16, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> On 5/1/24 11:26 AM, olcott wrote:
>>
>>>> It is a termination analyzer thus is not required to be infallibly
>>>> correct on every possible input. It must get at least one input
>>>> correctly.
>>>
>>> In other words, it is a TOY.
>>>
>>> By your definition:
>>>
>>> H(ptr m, ptr d) {
>>>      return 1;
>>> }
>>>
>>> is a correct termination analyzer, as it will get at least one input 
>>> correctly.
>>
>> Actually, by the metric which he gives, every single decider in 
>> existence is a correct termination analyzer, which tends to suggest 
>> this metric is relatively useless.
>>
>> André
>>
> 
> Try and back that up with reasoning anchored in quotes from my paper.
> 
> https://www.researchgate.net/publication/369971402_Termination_Analyzer_H_is_Not_Fooled_by_Pathological_Input_D

I was commenting on the line which you wrote here in this group, not a 
line from the above 'paper'.

Since the above paper talks about "termination analyzers" without 
offering any definition of what is meant by this term, I can only go by 
your comment in this group where you write that "a termination analyzer 
thus is not required to be infallibly correct on every possible input. 
It must get *at least one* input correctly." [emphasis mine].

That means that any decider which correctly accepts *one* terminating 
program as terminating is a "termination analyzer" (unless, of course, 
you mean something entirely different by "termination analyzer". But 
this would require you to supply an actual definition.)

And every decider will accept at least *one* terminating program 
description, regardless of what it is that that decider was actually 
intended to decide. That follows from the simple fact that it is no more 
possible to construct a decider which gets every instance of the halting 
problem* wrong than it is to construct one that gets every instance right.

André

[*] Here talk about 'halting' as if it is the same thing as 
'terminating'. Since you've switched from talking about halt deciders to 
'termination analyzers', perhaps you think these mean different things. 
But that again would require you to actually define what you think this 
difference is. Otherwise we're left simply trying to guess the meanings 
of your terms, as usual.

-- 
To email remove 'invalid' & replace 'gm' with well known Google mail 
service.