Path: ...!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 21:59:34 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 55
Message-ID: <v1mmun$1qip9$3@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$5@i2pn2.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Date: Sat, 11 May 2024 04:59:35 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="4d0dff08c358270f818af19f82bcfe8c";
	logging-data="1919785"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+qou7jlJwojEZkd9wPmKDw"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:IX9/MXDAAeEzZ+11/lHOs0ntIHs=
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <v1mlpv$lbo4$5@i2pn2.org>
Bytes: 3026

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.


> 
> 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