Re: Termination analyzer defined

On 5/11/24 1:04 AM, olcott wrote:

On 5/10/2024 10:16 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 5/10/24 10:59 PM, olcott wrote:

On 5/10/2024 9:39 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 5/10/24 10:24 PM, olcott wrote:

On 5/10/2024 9:16 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 5/10/24 8:59 PM, olcott wrote:

On 5/10/2024 7:30 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 all the people that said termination analyzer WAS NOT DEFINED
never meant that termination analyzer WAS NOT DEFINED. They all
meant that it was not defined well enough directly in my paper
even though it it a current term-of-the-art.
>

>
Do you have a reference which uses that definition?
>
Not just something you said yourself?

>
>
Now that I understand that ALL of the people that said my terms
were undefined NEVER meant that they were actually undefined I
can fix this.
>

>
Still don't understand universal qualifiers.

>
*ALL D simulated by H*
does not include
*SOME D NEVER simulated by H*
>
All cows running around in a pasture includes ZERO dead cows.

>
But simulating zero steps *IS* simulating ALL your steps simulated correctly.
>

 Yes and a dead cow might stampede into your house.
I make sure to never lie because of Revelations 21:8.

You have LONG passed that point it seems.
Just recently, how many times have you insisted that you statement that no H can simulate D to past line 3, when you have been told it can, and thus your statement is a LIE without even the possible excuse of an honest mistake, since you don't believe your statement enough to take up the challenge to make me show you where you are wrong.
Since you have doubts in your statement, you can't truthfully claim it must be true.

 I construe Revelations 21:8 to include women that
consistently lie about their weight by one pound.

Yep, if they haven't been forgiven by the acceptance of Jesus Christ.
Note, it doesn't matter what YOU believe, it matters what it actually means to the judge that will apply it.

 If this is the case then lying for trollish head
games would be also included, so I never lie.

You lie to yourself about not lying. You have shown that you just don't understand what truth is, which makes it hard not to lie.

 

And, you don't understand that "ALL D Simulated by H" isn't a property of D, or even H, but of problems looked at.
>
You are just showing you don't understand how english grammer works, because you are too stupid.
>

>
>

>
Since SOME people (like me) have said that you didn't define your terms, you can't use vacous meanings.
>
I guess since your replay to asking for a reference was a deflection, you are just admitting that this was just a Olcott invention, like most of your "verified facts" that are just your own made up LIES.
>

>

>