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 ---OLCOTT IS A LIAR !!!
Date: Sun, 19 May 2024 13:17:23 -0400
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <v2dc73$1g2n9$3@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> <v2cl3r$3be9l$1@dont-email.me>
 <v2cs9i$3cifp$3@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Sun, 19 May 2024 17:17:23 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="1575657"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg";
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
In-Reply-To: <v2cs9i$3cifp$3@dont-email.me>
Content-Language: en-US
Bytes: 11199
Lines: 242

On 5/19/24 8:45 AM, olcott wrote:
> On 5/19/2024 5:43 AM, Mikko wrote:
>> On 2024-05-18 14:35:43 +0000, olcott said:
>>
>>> 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
========== REMAINDER OF ARTICLE TRUNCATED ==========