Sujet : Re: Termination analyzer defined ---RICHARD IS WRONG !!!
De : mikko.levanto (at) *nospam* iki.fi (Mikko)
Groupes : comp.theoryDate : 12. May 2024, 10:45:20
Autres entêtes
Organisation : -
Message-ID : <v1pvj0$2knal$1@dont-email.me>
References : 1 2 3
User-Agent : Unison/2.2
On 2024-05-11 16:35:48 +0000, olcott said:
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*
More important is that you are wrong whenever you use "termination
analyser" for something that by the conventional meaning isn't.
In particular, one thing that needs be considered is the input space.
A particular input is not relevant.
-- Mikko