Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.theory > #104630 > unrolled thread
| Started by | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2024-05-10 19:30 -0500 |
| Last post | 2024-05-13 06:57 +0200 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 74 — 6 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.theory
Termination analyzer defined olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-10 19:30 -0500
Re: Termination analyzer defined olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-10 19:59 -0500
Re: Termination analyzer defined Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-10 22:16 -0400
Re: Termination analyzer defined olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-10 21:24 -0500
Re: Termination analyzer defined Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-10 22:39 -0400
Re: Termination analyzer defined olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-10 21:59 -0500
Re: Termination analyzer defined Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-10 23:16 -0400
Re: Termination analyzer defined olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-10 22:22 -0500
Re: Termination analyzer defined Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-10 23:49 -0400
Re: Termination analyzer defined olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-11 00:04 -0500
Re: Termination analyzer defined olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-11 00:21 -0500
Re: Termination analyzer defined Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-11 11:36 -0400
Re: Termination analyzer defined olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-10 22:21 -0500
Re: Termination analyzer defined Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-10 23:49 -0400
Re: Termination analyzer defined olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-10 23:47 -0500
Re: Termination analyzer defined Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-11 11:36 -0400
Re: Termination analyzer defined olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-11 00:43 -0500
Re: Termination analyzer defined Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-11 11:36 -0400
Re: Termination analyzer defined Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-10 22:17 -0400
Re: Termination analyzer defined olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-10 21:27 -0500
Re: Termination analyzer defined Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-10 22:39 -0400
Re: Termination analyzer defined olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-10 21:52 -0500
Re: Termination analyzer defined Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-10 23:16 -0400
Re: Termination analyzer defined olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-10 22:25 -0500
Re: Termination analyzer defined Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-10 23:49 -0400
Re: Termination analyzer defined olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-10 23:31 -0500
Re: Termination analyzer defined Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-11 11:36 -0400
Re: Termination analyzer defined "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl> - 2024-05-11 08:51 +0200
Re: Termination analyzer defined olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-11 10:21 -0500
Re: Termination analyzer defined Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-11 11:36 -0400
Re: Termination analyzer defined Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2024-05-11 12:39 +0300
Re: Termination analyzer defined ---RICHARD IS WRONG !!! olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-11 11:35 -0500
Re: Termination analyzer defined ---RICHARD IS WRONG !!! Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-11 12:47 -0400
Re: Termination analyzer defined ---RICHARD IS WRONG !!! Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2024-05-12 11:45 +0300
Re: Termination analyzer defined ---RICHARD IS WRONG !!! olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-12 08:59 -0500
Re: Termination analyzer defined ---RICHARD IS WRONG !!! Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2024-05-12 18:27 +0300
Re: Termination analyzer defined ---RICHARD IS WRONG !!! olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-12 12:12 -0500
Re: Termination analyzer defined ---RICHARD IS WRONG !!! Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-12 14:02 -0400
Re: Termination analyzer defined ---RICHARD IS WRONG !!! Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2024-05-13 12:06 +0300
Re: Termination analyzer defined ---RICHARD IS WRONG !!! olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-13 09:42 -0500
Re: Termination analyzer defined ---RICHARD IS WRONG !!! Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2024-05-14 12:28 +0300
Re: Termination analyzer defined ---RICHARD IS WRONG !!! olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-14 09:10 -0500
Re: Termination analyzer defined ---RICHARD IS WRONG !!! Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2024-05-15 10:53 +0300
Re: Termination analyzer defined ---RICHARD IS WRONG !!! olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-15 09:52 -0500
Re: Termination analyzer defined ---OLCOTT IS WRONG !!! Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-15 20:25 -0400
Re: Termination analyzer defined ---RICHARD IS WRONG !!! Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2024-05-16 12:59 +0300
Re: Termination analyzer defined ---RICHARD IS WRONG !!! olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-16 09:08 -0500
Re: Termination analyzer defined ---RICHARD IS WRONG !!! Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2024-05-17 11:58 +0300
Re: Termination analyzer defined ---RICHARD IS WRONG !!! olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-17 10:53 -0500
Re: Termination analyzer defined ---OLCOTT IS WRONG !!! Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-17 21:07 -0400
Re: Termination analyzer defined ---RICHARD IS WRONG !!! Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2024-05-18 12:33 +0300
Re: Termination analyzer defined ---RICHARD IS WRONG !!! olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-18 09:35 -0500
Re: Termination analyzer defined ---RICHARD IS WRONG !!! Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-18 10:43 -0400
Re: Termination analyzer defined ---RICHARD IS WRONG !!! Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2024-05-19 13:43 +0300
Re: Termination analyzer defined ---RICHARD IS WRONG !!! olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-19 07:45 -0500
Re: Termination analyzer defined ---OLCOTT IS A LIAR !!! Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-19 13:17 -0400
Re: Termination analyzer defined ---RICHARD IS WRONG !!! immibis <news@immibis.com> - 2024-05-18 10:52 +0200
Re: Termination analyzer defined ---RICHARD IS WRONG !!! olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-18 10:10 -0500
Re: Termination analyzer defined ---RICHARD IS WRONG !!! Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-18 11:14 -0400
Re: Termination analyzer defined ---RICHARD IS WRONG !!! Jeff Barnett <jbb@notatt.com> - 2024-05-13 12:07 -0600
Re: Termination analyzer defined ---RICHARD IS WRONG !!! Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2024-05-14 12:34 +0300
Re: Termination analyzer defined ---RICHARD IS WRONG !!! olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-14 09:15 -0500
Re: Termination analyzer defined ---RICHARD IS WRONG !!! olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-14 09:18 -0500
Re: Termination analyzer defined ---OLCOTT IS A LIAR !!! Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-14 22:16 -0400
Re: Termination analyzer defined ---RICHARD IS WRONG !!! Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2024-05-15 10:56 +0300
Re: Termination analyzer defined ---RICHARD IS WRONG !!! olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-15 09:55 -0500
Re: Termination analyzer defined ---OLCOTT IS WRONG !!! Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-15 20:25 -0400
Re: Termination analyzer defined ---RICHARD IS WRONG !!! Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2024-05-16 13:02 +0300
Re: Termination analyzer defined ---RICHARD IS WRONG !!! olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-16 09:21 -0500
Re: Termination analyzer defined ---OLCOTT IS WRONG !!! Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-16 22:29 -0400
Re: Termination analyzer defined ---RICHARD IS WRONG !!! Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2024-05-17 12:03 +0300
Re: Termination analyzer defined ---RICHARD IS WRONG !!! Jeff Barnett <jbb@notatt.com> - 2024-05-14 11:33 -0600
Re: Termination analyzer defined ---OLCOTT IS WRONG !!! Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-12 12:58 -0400
Re: Termination analyzer defined immibis <news@immibis.com> - 2024-05-13 06:57 +0200
Page 2 of 4 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 Next page →
| From | Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-05-10 22:39 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <v1mlp7$lbo4$3@i2pn2.org> |
| In reply to | #104637 |
On 5/10/24 10:27 PM, olcott wrote: > On 5/10/2024 9:17 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >> On 5/10/24 8:30 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, a Termination Analyzer that simulates 1 step and returns >> non-halting if it doesn't halt at that point is a correct termination >> analyzer? >> > > The term *termination analyzer* is well defined in the art. > Honest people would understand that a *simulating termination analyzer* > must have ALL of the properties of a *termination analyzer*. Then you can point to published definitons that match yours? Since you deflected that request, my guess is you can't. > >> There is at least one halting program it gets correct, and a lot of >> non-halting program it gets correct. >> >> Doesn't sound like a very useful sort of machine. >> >
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-05-10 21:52 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <v1mmhm$1qip9$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #104639 |
On 5/10/2024 9:39 PM, Richard Damon wrote: > On 5/10/24 10:27 PM, olcott wrote: >> On 5/10/2024 9:17 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>> On 5/10/24 8:30 PM, olcott wrote: >>>> A termination analyzer is different than a halt decider in that it need >>>> not correctly determine the halt status of every input. For the >>>> purposes >>>> of this paper a termination analyzer only needs to correctly determine >>>> the halt status of one terminating input and one non-terminating input. >>>> The computer science equivalent would be a halt decider with a limited >>>> domain that includes at least one halting and one non-halting input. >>>> >>> >>> So, a Termination Analyzer that simulates 1 step and returns >>> non-halting if it doesn't halt at that point is a correct termination >>> analyzer? >>> >> >> The term *termination analyzer* is well defined in the art. >> Honest people would understand that a *simulating termination analyzer* >> must have ALL of the properties of a *termination analyzer*. > > > Then you can point to published definitons that match yours? > Now that I know that when people say that a term is undefined they never meant that it is actually undefined I can fix this. > Since you deflected that request, my guess is you can't. > >> >>> There is at least one halting program it gets correct, and a lot of >>> non-halting program it gets correct. >>> >>> Doesn't sound like a very useful sort of machine. >>> >> > -- Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-05-10 23:16 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <v1mnue$lbo5$11@i2pn2.org> |
| In reply to | #104643 |
On 5/10/24 10:52 PM, olcott wrote: > On 5/10/2024 9:39 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >> On 5/10/24 10:27 PM, olcott wrote: >>> On 5/10/2024 9:17 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>> On 5/10/24 8:30 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, a Termination Analyzer that simulates 1 step and returns >>>> non-halting if it doesn't halt at that point is a correct >>>> termination analyzer? >>>> >>> >>> The term *termination analyzer* is well defined in the art. >>> Honest people would understand that a *simulating termination analyzer* >>> must have ALL of the properties of a *termination analyzer*. >> >> >> Then you can point to published definitons that match yours? >> > > Now that I know that when people say that a term is undefined > they never meant that it is actually undefined I can fix this. So, you are admitting that you LIED that your "definition" was the "term-of-art" definition? > >> Since you deflected that request, my guess is you can't. >> >>> >>>> There is at least one halting program it gets correct, and a lot of >>>> non-halting program it gets correct. >>>> >>>> Doesn't sound like a very useful sort of machine. >>>> >>> >> >
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-05-10 22:25 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <v1mofs$1qr5e$3@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #104647 |
On 5/10/2024 10:16 PM, Richard Damon wrote: > On 5/10/24 10:52 PM, olcott wrote: >> On 5/10/2024 9:39 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>> On 5/10/24 10:27 PM, olcott wrote: >>>> On 5/10/2024 9:17 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>> On 5/10/24 8:30 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>> A termination analyzer is different than a halt decider in that it >>>>>> need >>>>>> not correctly determine the halt status of every input. For the >>>>>> purposes >>>>>> of this paper a termination analyzer only needs to correctly >>>>>> determine >>>>>> the halt status of one terminating input and one non-terminating >>>>>> input. >>>>>> The computer science equivalent would be a halt decider with a >>>>>> limited >>>>>> domain that includes at least one halting and one non-halting input. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> So, a Termination Analyzer that simulates 1 step and returns >>>>> non-halting if it doesn't halt at that point is a correct >>>>> termination analyzer? >>>>> >>>> >>>> The term *termination analyzer* is well defined in the art. >>>> Honest people would understand that a *simulating termination analyzer* >>>> must have ALL of the properties of a *termination analyzer*. >>> >>> >>> Then you can point to published definitons that match yours? >>> >> >> Now that I know that when people say that a term is undefined >> they never meant that it is actually undefined I can fix this. > > So, you are admitting that you LIED that your "definition" was the > "term-of-art" definition? > *Termination analyzer* is a well defined term-of-the art. No termination analyzer is ever allowed to ignore all of its input. -- Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-05-10 23:49 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <v1mpsm$lbo4$7@i2pn2.org> |
| In reply to | #104651 |
On 5/10/24 11:25 PM, olcott wrote: > On 5/10/2024 10:16 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >> On 5/10/24 10:52 PM, olcott wrote: >>> On 5/10/2024 9:39 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>> On 5/10/24 10:27 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>> On 5/10/2024 9:17 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>> On 5/10/24 8:30 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, a Termination Analyzer that simulates 1 step and returns >>>>>> non-halting if it doesn't halt at that point is a correct >>>>>> termination analyzer? >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> The term *termination analyzer* is well defined in the art. >>>>> Honest people would understand that a *simulating termination >>>>> analyzer* >>>>> must have ALL of the properties of a *termination analyzer*. >>>> >>>> >>>> Then you can point to published definitons that match yours? >>>> >>> >>> Now that I know that when people say that a term is undefined >>> they never meant that it is actually undefined I can fix this. >> >> So, you are admitting that you LIED that your "definition" was the >> "term-of-art" definition? >> > > *Termination analyzer* is a well defined term-of-the art. > No termination analyzer is ever allowed to ignore all of > its input. > So still not showing a source of your definition. I guess this just proves you are pulling it out of your flaiming *ss.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-05-10 23:31 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <v1msas$1rkit$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #104654 |
On 5/10/2024 10:49 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 5/10/24 11:25 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 5/10/2024 10:16 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> On 5/10/24 10:52 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 5/10/2024 9:39 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>> On 5/10/24 10:27 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 5/10/2024 9:17 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>> On 5/10/24 8:30 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, a Termination Analyzer that simulates 1 step and returns
>>>>>>> non-halting if it doesn't halt at that point is a correct
>>>>>>> termination analyzer?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The term *termination analyzer* is well defined in the art.
>>>>>> Honest people would understand that a *simulating termination
>>>>>> analyzer*
>>>>>> must have ALL of the properties of a *termination analyzer*.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Then you can point to published definitons that match yours?
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Now that I know that when people say that a term is undefined
>>>> they never meant that it is actually undefined I can fix this.
>>>
>>> So, you are admitting that you LIED that your "definition" was the
>>> "term-of-art" definition?
>>>
>>
>> *Termination analyzer* is a well defined term-of-the art.
>> No termination analyzer is ever allowed to ignore all of
>> its input.
>>
>
>
> So still not showing a source of your definition.
>
> I guess this just proves you are pulling it out of your flaiming *ss.
It is the common term-of-the-art meaning of {termination analyzer}
IT ALWAYS HAS BEEN. You could have just looked it up.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Termination_analysis
https://easychair.org/cfp/WST2023
--
Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-05-11 11:36 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <v1o3ab$nmui$5@i2pn2.org> |
| In reply to | #104658 |
On 5/11/24 12:31 AM, olcott wrote:
> On 5/10/2024 10:49 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 5/10/24 11:25 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 5/10/2024 10:16 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> On 5/10/24 10:52 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 5/10/2024 9:39 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>> On 5/10/24 10:27 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 5/10/2024 9:17 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 5/10/24 8:30 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, a Termination Analyzer that simulates 1 step and returns
>>>>>>>> non-halting if it doesn't halt at that point is a correct
>>>>>>>> termination analyzer?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The term *termination analyzer* is well defined in the art.
>>>>>>> Honest people would understand that a *simulating termination
>>>>>>> analyzer*
>>>>>>> must have ALL of the properties of a *termination analyzer*.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Then you can point to published definitons that match yours?
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Now that I know that when people say that a term is undefined
>>>>> they never meant that it is actually undefined I can fix this.
>>>>
>>>> So, you are admitting that you LIED that your "definition" was the
>>>> "term-of-art" definition?
>>>>
>>>
>>> *Termination analyzer* is a well defined term-of-the art.
>>> No termination analyzer is ever allowed to ignore all of
>>> its input.
>>>
>>
>>
>> So still not showing a source of your definition.
>>
>> I guess this just proves you are pulling it out of your flaiming *ss.
>
> It is the common term-of-the-art meaning of {termination analyzer}
> IT ALWAYS HAS BEEN. You could have just looked it up.
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Termination_analysis
> https://easychair.org/cfp/WST2023
>
And where does this say that it only needs to get ONE answer correct for
each side?
Also, if your H is a "termination analyzer" for your D, then it should
only take one input, that of D, and not the second for the input given
to it.
Note, it begins with the statement:
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.
The next paragraph compares this to the Halting Problem which needs to
determine if it halts for a given input, instead of for ALL inputs.
Thus, it seems you are not doing what you claim to be doing.
In fact, this definition is nearly DIAMETRICALLY the opposite of your
definition.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-05-11 08:51 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <v1n4gp$1t04e$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #104630 |
Op 11.mei.2024 om 02:30 schreef olcott: > 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. > > Is this the complete definition? So, if something returns true if the input string has an even number of characters and returns false it it is an odd number of characters, it is a termination analyzer according to this definition? If not, then this is not a correct definition. A correct definition is needed.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-05-11 10:21 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <v1o2eb$23kcf$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #104664 |
On 5/11/2024 1:51 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
> Op 11.mei.2024 om 02:30 schreef olcott:
>> A termination analyzer is different than a halt decider in that it need
>> not correctly determine the halt status of every input. For the purposes
>> of this paper a termination analyzer only needs to correctly determine
>> the halt status of one terminating input and one non-terminating input.
>> The computer science equivalent would be a halt decider with a limited
>> domain that includes at least one halting and one non-halting input.
>>
>>
>
> Is this the complete definition?
*termination analyzer* is a standard term-of-the-art.
Because of than when people said my term was undefined
they were being untruthful.
I am working on providing an academic quality definition
of {termination analyzer} and {simulator} that are already
common terms-of-the-art.
No one should have ever said that these terms are undefined
because they are common terms of the art. None-the-less I
am working on providing academic quality definitions of these
conventional terms-of-the-art terms.
> So, if something returns true if the input string has an even number of
> characters and returns false it it is an odd number of characters, it is
> a termination analyzer according to this definition?
If you want to tell intentional falsehoods about conventional
terms-of-the-art feel free, this is on your credibility not mine.
> If not, then this is not a correct definition. A correct definition is
> needed.
I am working on providing academic quality definitions for these
conventional terms-of-the-art terms.
--
Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-05-11 11:36 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <v1o3ad$nmui$6@i2pn2.org> |
| In reply to | #104670 |
On 5/11/24 11:21 AM, olcott wrote:
> On 5/11/2024 1:51 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>> Op 11.mei.2024 om 02:30 schreef olcott:
>>> 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.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Is this the complete definition?
>
> *termination analyzer* is a standard term-of-the-art.
> Because of than when people said my term was undefined
> they were being untruthful.
>
> I am working on providing an academic quality definition
> of {termination analyzer} and {simulator} that are already
> common terms-of-the-art.
>
> No one should have ever said that these terms are undefined
> because they are common terms of the art. None-the-less I
> am working on providing academic quality definitions of these
> conventional terms-of-the-art terms.
>
>> So, if something returns true if the input string has an even number
>> of characters and returns false it it is an odd number of characters,
>> it is a termination analyzer according to this definition?
>
> If you want to tell intentional falsehoods about conventional
> terms-of-the-art feel free, this is on your credibility not mine.
Since it was just shown that YOU tell falsehoods about conventional
terms-of-the-arts, it is YOUR credibility that has been destroyed.
After all, your reference to a "Termination Analyzer" describes it as a
machine that decides if another machine will halt for EVERY input given
to it. There is no allowance for giving "wrong" answers in the article
that I can see. This is in stark contrast to your definition where it
needs to decide only one machine/input combination correctly for Halting
and Non-Halting values.
>
>> If not, then this is not a correct definition. A correct definition is
>> needed.
>
> I am working on providing academic quality definitions for these
> conventional terms-of-the-art terms.
>
If they are actual "terms-of-the-art" there should be such definitions
already, or at least something close. As that is the meaning of a TERM
of the art, something with a commonly accepted definition in the field
of art, and that accepted definition will need to be at least near
academic quality to be so accepted. (There may be some room for refining
it though, but not totally changing it).
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-05-11 12:39 +0300 |
| Message-ID | <v1nec4$1vb8i$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #104630 |
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.
--
Mikko
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-05-11 11:35 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: Termination analyzer defined ---RICHARD IS WRONG !!! |
| Message-ID | <v1o6p5$24f4c$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #104667 |
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*
The context of all of my discussions since 2023/06/19 has
always been the common term-of-the-art of {Termination Analyzer}
I have used the conventional term-of-the-art {Termination Analyzer}
in the title of my paper since 2023/06/19
*Termination Analyzer H is Not Fooled by Pathological Input D*
--
Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-05-11 12:47 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: Termination analyzer defined ---RICHARD IS WRONG !!! |
| Message-ID | <v1o7ef$nmui$10@i2pn2.org> |
| In reply to | #104680 |
On 5/11/24 12:35 PM, olcott wrote:
> 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*
No more wrong than your H that answers about a D that it wasn't given.
>
> The context of all of my discussions since 2023/06/19 has
> always been the common term-of-the-art of {Termination Analyzer}
Which you just proved you don't understand.
>
> I have used the conventional term-of-the-art {Termination Analyzer}
> in the title of my paper since 2023/06/19
> *Termination Analyzer H is Not Fooled by Pathological Input D*
>
>
Which just shows you don't know what you are talking about.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-05-12 11:45 +0300 |
| Subject | Re: Termination analyzer defined ---RICHARD IS WRONG !!! |
| Message-ID | <v1pvj0$2knal$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #104680 |
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.
In particular, one thing that needs be considered is the input space.
A particular input is not relevant.
--
Mikko
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-05-12 08:59 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: Termination analyzer defined ---RICHARD IS WRONG !!! |
| Message-ID | <v1qi01$2on4q$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #104701 |
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.
> In particular, one thing that needs be considered is the input space.
> A particular input is not relevant.
>
A particular input is 100% relevant when trying to determine
the halt status of this input.
*The pathology of an input CANNOT BE IGNORED*
When Ĥ is applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩
Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* embedded_H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qy ∞
Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* embedded_H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn
It <is> the case that the input to embedded_H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ never stops running
unless aborted when embedded_H is a simulating termination analyzer.
People can lie about this. What they cannot do is show steps proving
that it does stop running without being aborted.
--
Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-05-12 18:27 +0300 |
| Subject | Re: Termination analyzer defined ---RICHARD IS WRONG !!! |
| Message-ID | <v1qn4o$2pts6$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #104705 |
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
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-05-12 12:12 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: Termination analyzer defined ---RICHARD IS WRONG !!! |
| Message-ID | <v1qt92$2rdui$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #104711 |
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.
Termination analyzers are allowed to be quite dumb so that they
handle very few programs. One of the best termination analyzers
could not handle any recursive programs at all for quite
a few years.
--
Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-05-12 14:02 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: Termination analyzer defined ---RICHARD IS WRONG !!! |
| Message-ID | <v1r06r$qvg2$2@i2pn2.org> |
| In reply to | #104719 |
On 5/12/24 1:12 PM, olcott wrote:
> 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.
>
> Termination analyzers are allowed to be quite dumb so that they
> handle very few programs. One of the best termination analyzers
> could not handle any recursive programs at all for quite
> a few years.
>
>
Not by the Wikipedia page you linked to.
Yes, practical application accept that a practical analyzer will not be
able to answer for all possible inputs, and parts of the field try to
determine what classes of machines can be correctly decided. These are
most correctly described as partial deciders/analysers that can only
answer about certain classes of problems. In not fully formal writting,
the partial might be omitted from the descriptive name, since it is
known that a universal halt deciders are not possible.
So, it seems you don't understand the difference between the FORMAL
definition of these machines, that is known to be impossible to make,
and the study of macines admitted to not meet the full definition, but
are studied to see how "good" we can get.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-05-13 12:06 +0300 |
| Subject | Re: Termination analyzer defined ---RICHARD IS WRONG !!! |
| Message-ID | <v1sl6o$3cg5n$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #104719 |
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.
> Termination analyzers are allowed to be quite dumb so that they
> handle very few programs.
True, but the more the better. But they must not report "yes" if
the program may fail to terminate.
> One of the best termination analyzers could not handle any
> recursive programs at all for quite a few years.
In many context recursive programs are prohibited anyway so that
is not always a serious restriction.
--
Mikko
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-05-13 09:42 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: Termination analyzer defined ---RICHARD IS WRONG !!! |
| Message-ID | <v1t8rt$3gu9t$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #104764 |
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.
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.
>> Termination analyzers are allowed to be quite dumb so that they
>> handle very few programs.
>
> True, but the more the better. But they must not report "yes" if
> the program may fail to terminate.
>
So they are not answering the question:
Does this program halt?
Instead they are answering the question:
Does this program not halt?
>> One of the best termination analyzers could not handle any
>> recursive programs at all for quite a few years.
>
> In many context recursive programs are prohibited anyway so that
> is not always a serious restriction.
>
--
Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 2 of 4 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.theory
csiph-web