XPost: comp.theory, sci.math   
   From: polcott333@gmail.com   
      
   On 12/17/2025 8:33 AM, Richard Heathfield wrote:   
   > On 17/12/2025 10:32, Mikko wrote:   
   >> On 15/12/2025 18:20, Richard Heathfield wrote:   
   >>> [...] 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.   
   >   
   > Except by the one person you're arguing with. I am yet to be convinced   
   > that Olcott has grasped what a halt decider is, because if he had this   
   > discussion would have ended over twenty years ago.   
   >   
      
   Technically A halt decider is equivalent to the all knowing   
   mind of God for the limited subject domain of computation.   
      
   When I use the precise correct term of partial halt   
   decider many people here get totally confused.   
      
   The correct technical term of termination analyzer   
   also confuses people. They cannot see how it applies   
   to the halting problem.   
      
   When I use the term halt decider I mean a halt decider   
   on the limited domain of DD. This too confuses some people.   
      
   It seems that many people here that are very interested   
   in the theory of computation may have no actual programming   
   experience. This prevents then from having any understanding   
   of the key details of fully operational termination   
   analyzers.   
      
   --   
   Copyright 2025 Olcott

   
      
   My 28 year goal has been to make 
   
   "true on the basis of meaning expressed in language"
   
   reliably computable.

   
      
   This required establishing a new foundation
   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)