Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder9.news.weretis.net!i2pn.org!i2pn2.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org>
Newsgroups: sci.logic,comp.theory
Subject: Re: Termination analyzer defined
Date: Sat, 11 May 2024 11:36:42 -0400
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <v1o3aa$nmui$4@i2pn2.org>
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> <v1mo71$1qr5e$1@dont-email.me>
 <v1mpsr$lbo4$8@i2pn2.org> <v1n0i2$1sh73$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Date: Sat, 11 May 2024 15:36:42 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="777170"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg";
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <v1n0i2$1sh73$1@dont-email.me>
Bytes: 3704
Lines: 70

On 5/11/24 1:43 AM, olcott wrote:
> On 5/10/2024 10:49 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 5/10/24 11:21 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.
>>>>
>>>> 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.
>>>>
>>>
>>> *When people said I terms are not defined I simply took them for liars*
>>
>> Yep, that is what you do, you IGNORE the facts, and just LIE.
>>
>>>
>>> Now that I understand when they said my terms are undefined they
>>> actually meant *not defined clearly enough directly in this paper*
>>> I can fix this.
>>>
>>
>> A definition clearly enough to be used, is not a definition.
>>
> 
> My work has the same architecture as the AProVE system of symbolic
> execution. I haven't found their best paper yet because there are
> so many good ones.
> 

So, where do they define there terms?

Note, One groups definitions do not make it a "term of art".