Path: ...!feeds.phibee-telecom.net!news.mixmin.net!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi>
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: Termination analyzer defined ---RICHARD IS WRONG !!!
Date: Sun, 12 May 2024 18:27:20 +0300
Organization: -
Lines: 56
Message-ID: <v1qn4o$2pts6$1@dont-email.me>
References: <v1me7i$1l6ut$1@dont-email.me> <v1nec4$1vb8i$1@dont-email.me> <v1o6p5$24f4c$2@dont-email.me> <v1pvj0$2knal$1@dont-email.me> <v1qi01$2on4q$2@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Sun, 12 May 2024 17:27:21 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="a20c66d1acddb89f66ce6a114e43c315";
	logging-data="2946950"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+QrSjxhxD9DWUewBPcBD1t"
User-Agent: Unison/2.2
Cancel-Lock: sha1:e3jrP51op9LKI1fsrbDIteLFbeA=
Bytes: 3347

On 2024-05-12 13:59:28 +0000, olcott said:

> On 5/12/2024 3:45 AM, Mikko wrote:
>> On 2024-05-11 16:35:48 +0000, olcott said:
>> 
>>> On 5/11/2024 4:39 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>> On 2024-05-11 00:30:40 +0000, olcott said:
>>>> 
>>>>> 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.
>>>> 
>>>> From https://www.google.fi/search?q=termination+analysis and
>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Termination_analysis :
>>>> 
>>>> "In computer science, termination analysis is program analysis which 
>>>> attempts to determine whether the evaluation of a given program halts 
>>>> for each input. This means to determine whether the input program 
>>>> computes a total function."
>>>> 
>>>> So the term "termination analysis" is already defined. The derived term
>>>> "termination analyzer" means a performer of termination analysis. That
>>>> does not agree with the propsed defintion above so a differnt term
>>>> should be used.
>>>> 
>>>> That "termination analysis" is a know term that need not be defined
>>>> is demostrated e.g. by
>>>> 
>>>>    https://arxiv.org/pdf/2101.09783
>>>> 
>>>> which simply assumes that readers know (at least approximately) what
>>>> the term means.
>>>> 
>>> 
>>> You are doing a great job performing an honest review!
>>> So every time that Richard referred to a {termination analyzer} that
>>> ignores its inputs *Richard was WRONG*
>> 
>> More important is that you are wrong whenever you use "termination
>> analyser" for something that by the conventional meaning isn't.
>> 
> 
> A conventional termination analyzer is free to use any algorithm
> as long as it analyzes termination.

It is not sufficient to analyse something about termination. The
conventional meaning is that a termination analyser does not say
"yes" unless the analysed program terminates with every possible
input.

-- 
Mikko