Re: Termination analyzer defined

On 5/10/2024 10:49 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 5/10/24 11:25 PM, olcott wrote:

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

On 5/10/24 10:52 PM, olcott wrote:

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

On 5/10/24 10:27 PM, olcott wrote:

On 5/10/2024 9:17 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 5/10/24 8:30 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, a Termination Analyzer that simulates 1 step and returns non-halting if it doesn't halt at that point is a correct termination analyzer?
>

>
The term *termination analyzer* is well defined in the art.
Honest people would understand that a *simulating termination analyzer*
must have ALL of the properties of a *termination analyzer*.

>
>
Then you can point to published definitons that match yours?
>

>
Now that I know that when people say that a term is undefined
they never meant that it is actually undefined I can fix this.

>
So, you are admitting that you LIED that your "definition" was the "term-of-art" definition?
>

>
*Termination analyzer* is a well defined term-of-the art.
No termination analyzer is ever allowed to ignore all of
its input.
>

  So still not showing a source of your definition.
 I guess this just proves you are pulling it out of your flaiming *ss.

It is the common term-of-the-art meaning of {termination analyzer}
IT ALWAYS HAS BEEN. You could have just looked it up.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Termination_analysis
https://easychair.org/cfp/WST2023
--
Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer