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
Subject: Re: Termination analyzer defined ---RICHARD IS WRONG !!!
Date: Sat, 18 May 2024 10:43:06 -0400
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <v2aepq$1ct7p$6@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> <v24ld9$1ge11$1@dont-email.me>
 <v2541i$1jo3l$2@dont-email.me> <v27674$241gv$1@dont-email.me>
 <v27uhu$28r3c$1@dont-email.me> <v29sln$2njtl$1@dont-email.me>
 <v2aec0$2qsgt$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Sat, 18 May 2024 14:43:06 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="1471737"; 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: <v2aec0$2qsgt$1@dont-email.me>
Bytes: 11717
Lines: 257

On 5/18/24 10:35 AM, olcott wrote:
> On 5/18/2024 4:33 AM, Mikko wrote:
>> On 2024-05-17 15:53:33 +0000, olcott said:
>>
>>> On 5/17/2024 3:58 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>> On 2024-05-16 14:08:50 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>
>>>>> On 5/16/2024 4:59 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>> On 2024-05-15 14:52:01 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 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.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> However, there is no way to ensure that the answer is ever found.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> For the C version and the Turing machine version of the halting 
>>>>> problem
>>>>> template an answer <is> found.
>>>>
>>>> That is a very restricted set of programs that are not very 
>>>> interesting.
>>>>
>>>
>>> If refuting the halting problem proofs is not very interesting then
>>> what is interesting?
>>>
>>>> It is not sufficient that an answer must be given. There must be a
>>>> proof that the wrong answer is never given. For programs outside of
>>>> the domain and non-programs given as programs an answer that is
>>>> neither "yes" or "no" is permitted.
>>>>
>>>
>>> *Not at all. Not in the least little bit*
>>> For the H/D pairs comprising the halting problem counter-example all
>>> that needs be shown is that one of YES or NO <is> the correct answer.
>>
========== REMAINDER OF ARTICLE TRUNCATED ==========