XPost: comp.theory, sci.math   
   From: polcott333@gmail.com   
      
   On 12/18/2025 4:33 AM, Mikko wrote:   
   > On 17/12/2025 17:31, 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.   
   >   
   > The all knowing mind of God is not a part of the mathematics relevant   
   > to computations.   
   >   
      
   Total Deciders must be able to determine   
   halting no matter how complex. They must   
   do this even for problems that have no known   
   solution.   
      
   >> When I use the precise correct term of partial halt   
   >> decider many people here get totally confused.   
   >   
   > You rarely use "partial halt decider" so it doesn't matter.   
   >   
   >> The correct technical term of termination analyzer   
   >> also confuses people. They cannot see how it applies   
   >> to the halting problem.   
   >   
   > The termination problem is a different problem.   
      
   termination analyze on one program and halt   
   decider on one program are the same thing.   
      
   Both can have limited domains.   
      
   >  It is irrelevant   
   > to the understanding and discussion about the halting problem. Of   
   > course, a termination decider would solve the halting problem, so   
      
   counter-factual.   
      
   > the uncomputability of termination is a simple consequence of the   
   > uncomputabiity of halting. But a termination anlyzer, even if one   
   > that does not solve every case, is much more useful than a halting   
   > analyzer.   
   >   
      
      
   --   
   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)