XPost: comp.theory, sci.math   
   From: polcott333@gmail.com   
      
   On 12/17/2025 10:29 PM, Richard Damon wrote:   
   > On 12/17/25 10:31 AM, olcott wrote:   
   >> 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.   
   >   
   > Nope, in part because programs don't actually "think", they just follow   
   > their orders (programming).   
   >   
   > And the coder doesn't need to be "all-knowing", because he can   
   > conceivably crate an algorithm to compute all the cases without needing   
   > to have done it for all values.   
   >   
   > After all, all a proof is, is a "algorithm" that shows that for all   
   > possible cases a given statement is true.   
   >   
   >   
   >>   
   >> When I use the precise correct term of partial halt   
   >> decider many people here get totally confused.   
   >   
   > But partial deciders aren't new.   
      
   For many people here even the term decider is new.   
      
   >  And your decider isn't even right for   
   > the one case you try to claim.   
   >   
   >>   
   >> The correct technical term of termination analyzer   
   >> also confuses people. They cannot see how it applies   
   >> to the halting problem.   
   >   
   > Nope, that is something different. A Termination Analyzer still needs to   
   > get the right answer for ALL cases or it is also only partial   
   >   
      
   Counter-factual   
      
   In computer science, termination analysis is   
   program analysis which attempts to determine   
   whether the evaluation of a given program halts   
   for each input. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Termination_analysis   
      
   For HHH(DD) DD is the given program and all   
   the inputs are no inputs at all.   
      
   >>   
   >> When I use the term halt decider I mean a halt decider   
   >> on the limited domain of DD. This too confuses some people.   
   >   
   > In other words, you admit to just lying.   
   >   
   > And, since DD halts, your decider saying it isn't, isn't even a correct   
   > decider for the one case you claim.   
   >   
   > It isn't a "halt decider", it is just a POOP decider,   
   >   
   >>   
   >> 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.   
   >>   
   >   
   > It seems you don't understand programming either, as you keep on making   
   > silly mistakes about what a program actually is, because you keep on   
   > lying to yourself.   
   >   
      
      
   --   
   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)