Sujet : Re: What is the best way for termination analyzers to handle pathological inputs?
De : richard (at) *nospam* damon-family.org (Richard Damon)
Groupes : comp.theoryDate : 10. Jun 2025, 19:53:47
Autres entêtes
Organisation : i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID : <f901f7cb6bb240e46f2f64f93f3571ccfe8b90d2@i2pn2.org>
References : 1 2 3
User-Agent : Mozilla Thunderbird
On 6/10/25 1:22 PM, olcott wrote:
On 6/10/2025 2:33 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 2025-06-09 21:14:58 +0000, olcott said:
>
The official "received view" of this is that the best
we can possibly do is to do nothing and give up.
>
There is no official view about "the best". What is the best
depends on what one needs and wants. Some may think that the
best they can do is to waste their life in trying to do the
impossible.
>
It is not at all impossible to create a termination
analyzer that reports on the behavior specified
by the input to HHH(DDD). It was never correct to
define a termination analyzer any other way.
Right, it is just a fact that it is impossible for HHH to be shuch a analyzer.
A CORRECT Temrination analyzer of the input to HHH(DDD), that is to the termination analysis of DDD, is to say it halts, since the HHH(DDD) that DDD will call will return non-halting to that DDD, and it will then halt.
What is the best way for termination analyzers to handle pathological inputs?
Re: What is the best way for termination analyzers to handle pathological inputs?
