Sujet : Re: Termination analyzer defined
De : polcott333 (at) *nospam* gmail.com (olcott)
Groupes : sci.logic comp.theoryDate : 11. May 2024, 06:47:37
Autres entêtes
Organisation : A noiseless patient Spider
Message-ID : <v1mt99$1rkit$3@dont-email.me>
References : 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
User-Agent : Mozilla Thunderbird
On 5/10/2024 10:49 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 5/10/24 11:21 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.
>
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.
>
>
*When people said I terms are not defined I simply took them for liars*
Yep, that is what you do, you IGNORE the facts, and just LIE.
>
Now that I understand when they said my terms are undefined they
actually meant *not defined clearly enough directly in this paper*
I can fix this.
>
A definition clearly enough to be used, is not a definition.
I wouldn't think that common terms-art would need any
definition.
-- Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Geniushits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer
Termination analyzer defined
Re: Termination analyzer defined