Warning: mysqli::__construct(): (HY000/1203): User howardkn already has more than 'max_user_connections' active connections in D:\Inetpub\vhosts\howardknight.net\al.howardknight.net\includes\artfuncs.php on line 21
Failed to connect to MySQL: (1203) User howardkn already has more than 'max_user_connections' active connections
Warning: mysqli::query(): Couldn't fetch mysqli in D:\Inetpub\vhosts\howardknight.net\al.howardknight.net\index.php on line 66
Article <v23jqg$15707$24@i2pn2.org>
Deutsch   English   Français   Italiano  
<v23jqg$15707$24@i2pn2.org>

View for Bookmarking (what is this?)
Look up another Usenet article

Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder9.news.weretis.net!i2pn.org!i2pn2.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org>
Newsgroups: comp.theory,sci.logic
Subject: Re: Termination analyzer defined ---OLCOTT IS WRONG !!!
Date: Wed, 15 May 2024 20:25:52 -0400
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <v23jqg$15707$24@i2pn2.org>
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> <v1qn4o$2pts6$1@dont-email.me>
 <v1qt92$2rdui$1@dont-email.me> <v1sl6o$3cg5n$1@dont-email.me>
 <v1t8rt$3gu9t$2@dont-email.me> <v1varv$39j3$1@dont-email.me>
 <v1vrd9$7577$1@dont-email.me> <v21pla$ojrm$1@dont-email.me>
 <v22i6i$u8pk$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Thu, 16 May 2024 00:25:52 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="1219591"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg";
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Content-Language: en-US
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
In-Reply-To: <v22i6i$u8pk$1@dont-email.me>
Bytes: 7471
Lines: 146

On 5/15/24 10:52 AM, olcott wrote:
> On 5/15/2024 2:53 AM, Mikko wrote:
>> On 2024-05-14 14:10:47 +0000, olcott said:
>>
>>> On 5/14/2024 4:28 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>> On 2024-05-13 14:42:05 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>
>>>>> On 5/13/2024 4:06 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>> On 2024-05-12 17:12:00 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 5/12/2024 10:27 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>>> 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.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> A specific program halts with every input is not at all the same
>>>>>>> thing as correctly analyzing every program with every input.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If you can't find out whether a program halts with every input even
>>>>>> after analyzing it with every input your analysis is not really
>>>>>> good enough for the purpose.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Anyway, if an analyzer can never tell whether a program terminates
>>>>>> with every possible input then it is not a termination analyzer.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> My simple termination analyzer easily determines whether or not
>>>>> the limited class of programs that are in its domain halt on
>>>>> every input. For example D() only has three classes of inputs
>>>>> (a) Inputs that halt
>>>>> (b) Inputs that do not halt
>>>>> (c) itself.
>>>>
>>>> If you can prove that it never gives a wrong "yes" answer
>>>> you can call it a "termination analyzer". Even better if
>>>> you can prove that it never gives a "yes" answer for an
>>>> invalid input.
>>>>
>>>> However, it is not useful if it does not say "yes" about any useful
>>>> or interesting program.
>>>>
>>>>> Because it is a termination analyzer it need not work for
>>>>> all programs. A partial halt decider with a limited domain
>>>>> seems to be the equivalent theory of computation terminology.
>>>>
>>>> A partial halt decider is not a termination analyzer. Their input
>>>> spaces are distinct.
>>>>
>>>
>>> It correctly determines the halt status YES or NO
>>> for a specific limited set of programs and ALL of
>>> the inputs to this limited infinite set of programs.
>>
>> The important difference is that a partial halting decider takes
>> a pair (progam, input) for input but a halting analyzer takes
>> a singlet (program).
>>
> 
> One can analyze whether a specific program will halt with a specific
> input. This is especially important when the received view is that a
> specific program cannot possibly handle a specific input correctly.
> 
> H(D,D) must actually analyze the behavior that D specifies and D
> specifies that D correctly simulated by H cannot possibly reach
> its own simulated final state and halt.

But the behavior that H is supposed to be answering about is does D(D) 
halt when run.

If you are admitting that you are just working on your POOP, you need to 
stop talking about is a "Halt Deciding", because that is juat a LIE.

> 
> In the above case a simulator is an x86 emulator that correctly
> emulates the x86 instructions of D in the order specified by the
> x86 instructions of D until H correctly determines that D correctly
> simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final state
> at line 06. This may possibly include one or more recursive
> simulations.
> 
> 

Except that I have shown how to write an H that does that, and you are 
too stupid and bullheaded to understand that.