XPost: comp.theory, sci.math   
   From: polcott333@gmail.com   
      
   On 12/17/2025 11:08 PM, Richard Damon wrote:   
   > On 12/17/25 11:57 PM, olcott wrote:   
   >> 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   
   >   
   > Right, and "given" here means that its input specifies which program   
   > this instance is to run on.   
   >   
      
   not programs   
      
   > It does NOT mean it only need to get the answer for just one   
   >   
   >>   
   >> For HHH(DD) DD is the given program and all   
   >> the inputs are no inputs at all.   
   >   
   > No, it is the one we are looking at in the moment.   
   >   
   > But to be a Termination Analyzer, we can give it ANY program.   
   >   
   > You are just showing you don't understand how to use qualifiers, because   
   > you just don't understand the language.   
      
      
   --   
   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)