XPost: comp.theory, sci.math, comp.theory   
   From: mikko.levanto@iki.fi   
      
   On 15/12/2025 18:20, Richard Heathfield wrote:   
   > On 15/12/2025 10:08, Mikko wrote:   
   >> On 15/12/2025 11:14, Richard Heathfield wrote:   
   >   
   >    
   >   
   >>> Halt deciders are ten a penny.   
   >>>   
   >>> This one, for example, works 99% of the time, +/-:   
   >>>   
   >>> int halts(char *prgfilename, void *input)   
   >>> {   
   >>>    return 1;   
   >>> }   
   >>>   
   >>> If you meant to claim that there are no *universal* halt deciders,   
   >>> then of course I agree.   
   >>   
   >> The usual meaning of "halt decider" and "halting decider" is that   
   >> it answers correctly every time.   
   >   
   > Okay, but in a group where a persistent crank is constantly trying to   
   > blur the meaning of "halt decider", being excessively precise may be no   
   > bad thing.   
      
   You needn't use the term "halt decider" without "total" or "partial"   
   if you don't want to. For me the plain "halt decider" seems to be   
   sufficiently often understood as intended. In these discussions the   
   most quoted authors are Linz and Sipser, so their definitions are   
   usually used and assumed.   
      
   --   
   Mikko   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)