Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder8.news.weretis.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 22:25:48 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 47
Message-ID: <v1mofs$1qr5e$3@dont-email.me>
References: <v1me7i$1l6ut$1@dont-email.me> <v1mkg1$lbo5$8@i2pn2.org>
 <v1ml2j$1q5ee$3@dont-email.me> <v1mlp7$lbo4$3@i2pn2.org>
 <v1mmhm$1qip9$2@dont-email.me> <v1mnue$lbo5$11@i2pn2.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Date: Sat, 11 May 2024 05:25:49 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="4d0dff08c358270f818af19f82bcfe8c";
	logging-data="1928366"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1893qUoHNVLP6NfZR7i6xNa"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:7ERxod9p5DVYy4HpqcpLTXnfF/g=
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <v1mnue$lbo5$11@i2pn2.org>
Bytes: 2932

On 5/10/2024 10:16 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 5/10/24 10:52 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 5/10/2024 9:39 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> On 5/10/24 10:27 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 5/10/2024 9:17 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>> On 5/10/24 8:30 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, a Termination Analyzer that simulates 1 step and returns 
>>>>> non-halting if it doesn't halt at that point is a correct 
>>>>> termination analyzer?
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> The term *termination analyzer* is well defined in the art.
>>>> Honest people would understand that a *simulating termination analyzer*
>>>> must have ALL of the properties of a *termination analyzer*.
>>>
>>>
>>> Then you can point to published definitons that match yours?
>>>
>>
>> Now that I know that when people say that a term is undefined
>> they never meant that it is actually undefined I can fix this.
> 
> So, you are admitting that you LIED that your "definition" was the 
> "term-of-art" definition?
> 

*Termination analyzer* is a well defined term-of-the art.
No termination analyzer is ever allowed to ignore all of
its input.

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