Re: DDD incorrectly emulated by HHH is INcorrectly rejected as non-halting.

On 7/16/24 10:24 AM, olcott wrote:

On 7/16/2024 2:06 AM, Mikko wrote:

On 2024-07-15 13:15:29 +0000, olcott said:
>

On 7/15/2024 2:41 AM, Mikko wrote:

On 2024-07-14 14:13:41 +0000, olcott said:
>

On 7/14/2024 3:40 AM, Mikko wrote:

On 2024-07-13 12:22:24 +0000, olcott said:

>
Deciders are required to (thus must) halt.

>
The semantics of the x86 language does not require that, nor that any of
the programs is a decider.

>
The subject our our conversion is a simulating termination
analyzer

>
No, it is not. As stated on the Subject line, the subject is correctness of
the rejection of DDD as non-halting.
>

AKA partial halt decider

>
That "AKA" is incorrect. The term "termination analyzer" means a program
of a certain kind and the term "partial halt decider" means a program of
a different kind.
>

>
Not for the subset of inputs that we are examining.

>
Yes with all inputs. Their input spaces are distinct and they are required
to answer a different question.
>

  A partial halt decider is a termination analyzer for
any input that has no inputs.
 

No, a partial halt decider is a partial termination analyzer for any input machine that has no inputs.
A REAL termination analyzer must still answer for all inputs, but since smart people know that can't be done, the common speach assumes the partial.