Re: Termination analyzer defined ---RICHARD IS WRONG !!!

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