Re: What it would take...

On 5/13/25 12:14 AM, olcott wrote:

On 5/12/2025 10:41 PM, Richard Heathfield wrote:

On 13/05/2025 04:38, olcott wrote:

I will continue to make my points endlessly

>
I think that's all we need to know.
>

 My aim is to continue to make my same points
so that the people dodging them look increasingly
foolish and/or dishonest. I keep refining them
slightly so disagreement is looking more and
more ridiculous and/or dishonest.
 You seems to not know enough to address my
points yet say that I am wrong about them anyway.
 

No, YOU are the one that is looking increasingly foolish.
After all, you have already admitted that you program and input aren't even of the category of items needed for the Halting Problem, but this doesn't seem to matter to you.
That is like complaining that you language tutor program can't feed your cat.
The Halting Problem is about a PROGRAM that can decide on the behavior of a PROGRAM (and its input) given to it as a represention, telling for *ANY* program if it will halt on that input.
The Termination Analyser problem that you try to switch to is even harder, it is about a PROGRAM that can decide on the behavior of a PROGRAM, and ALL POSSIBLE inputs to it, telling if it will halt on all of them, in other words decide if the program described by its input is a decider.
Perhaps you get confused by the fact that everyone knows you can't do such a thing, and thus are looking to see how close to this they can get, to see if their (partial) Halt Decider or Termination Analyser can handle a large enough range of possible inputs to do something meaningful, What classes of programs can we do good jobs on, and what classes of programs are harder. Always answering (even if it is "I can't tell") and never giving a wrong answers are good properties, normally included as a requirement for a good partial decider.