On 12/17/25 9:15 AM, olcott wrote:
On 12/17/2025 4:21 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 15/12/2025 16:01, olcott wrote:
On 12/15/2025 2:53 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 15/12/2025 02:31, olcott wrote:
Whenever any textbook says that a halt decider
must compute halting for machine M on input w
is it wrong. At best it only computes the halting
of M/w through the proxy of finite strings ⟨M⟩/w.
Turing machine deciders compute the mapping from
input finite strings to an accept or reject value
by some criterion measure.
Turing machine halt deciders compute the mapping
from input finite strings to a halt status on the
basis of the behavior that these finite strings
inputs actually specify.
There are no halt deciders so they don't actually do anything.
There are no halt only deciders because they are
defined as a category error.
The expression "halt only deciders" does not make sense. A decider
is a decider of one fieture of the input. It does not decide
anything else. What is that "only" intended to mean?
The above definition removes that category error.
It also removes the halting problem.
No halt decider can possibly report on the behavior
of a Turing machine they can only report on the
behavior that finite string inputs specify.
The input string specifies the behavour of a Truing machine and a
particular input to that Turing machine. Any other inpterpretation
is outside of the scope of the halting problem.
(a) TMs only transform input finite strings to values
using finite string transformation rules.
(b) Within finite string transformation rules input
P simulated by decider H is the ultimate measure of
the behavior that the input to H(P) specifies.
But that is incorrect, or you are lying that you are talking aboyut
halting.
That is your definition of POOPing, not Halting.
Halting is determined by the behavior of a REAL UTM (one that doesn't
stop till it reachs the end) processing this input.
If there is no finite string transformation rules
from the input to H(P) to the behavior of P()
then the behavior of P() is outside of the scope
of Turing machine computations.
But there is, since UTMs exist, and they, by definition. exactly
replicate the behavior of running the machine the input describes.
All you are doing is proving you are incapible of learning basic terms
of the field you chose to claim expertise in.
Because no decider can determine about every pair of a Turing
machine and input there are no halting deciders.
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.
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
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.
On 12/17/2025 10:29 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 12/17/25 9:15 AM, olcott wrote:
On 12/17/2025 4:21 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 15/12/2025 16:01, olcott wrote:
On 12/15/2025 2:53 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 15/12/2025 02:31, olcott wrote:
Whenever any textbook says that a halt decider
must compute halting for machine M on input w
is it wrong. At best it only computes the halting
of M/w through the proxy of finite strings ⟨M⟩/w.
Turing machine deciders compute the mapping from
input finite strings to an accept or reject value
by some criterion measure.
Turing machine halt deciders compute the mapping
from input finite strings to a halt status on the
basis of the behavior that these finite strings
inputs actually specify.
There are no halt deciders so they don't actually do anything.
There are no halt only deciders because they are
defined as a category error.
The expression "halt only deciders" does not make sense. A decider
is a decider of one fieture of the input. It does not decide
anything else. What is that "only" intended to mean?
The above definition removes that category error.
It also removes the halting problem.
No halt decider can possibly report on the behavior
of a Turing machine they can only report on the
behavior that finite string inputs specify.
The input string specifies the behavour of a Truing machine and a
particular input to that Turing machine. Any other inpterpretation
is outside of the scope of the halting problem.
(a) TMs only transform input finite strings to values
using finite string transformation rules.
(b) Within finite string transformation rules input
P simulated by decider H is the ultimate measure of
the behavior that the input to H(P) specifies.
But that is incorrect, or you are lying that you are talking aboyut
halting.
The behavior of any TM is always measured through the proxy
of a finite string TM description.
That is your definition of POOPing, not Halting.
Halting is determined by the behavior of a REAL UTM (one that doesn't
stop till it reachs the end) processing this input.
If there is no finite string transformation rules
from the input to H(P) to the behavior of P()
then the behavior of P() is outside of the scope
of Turing machine computations.
But there is, since UTMs exist, and they, by definition. exactly
replicate the behavior of running the machine the input describes.
All you are doing is proving you are incapible of learning basic terms
of the field you chose to claim expertise in.
Because no decider can determine about every pair of a Turing
machine and input there are no halting deciders.
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.
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.
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.
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.
On 12/17/2025 4:32 AM, Mikko wrote:
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:
<snip>
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.
The Frege's Principle of compositionality https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_compositionality
of the common base meanings of "halt" and "decider"
means something that decides about halting.
On 12/17/2025 11:08 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 12/17/25 11:57 PM, olcott wrote:
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
On 12/18/25 12:26 AM, olcott wrote:
On 12/17/2025 11:08 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 12/17/25 11:57 PM, olcott wrote:
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
You are just showing you don't know what the wordw mean, because as you
have admitted, you retain the "right" to redefine any word you want,
which means semantics are meaningless in your logic.
All you are doing is shouting from the mountain tops that you are just--
an ignorant pathological liar.
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.
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.
It is irrelevant
to the understanding and discussion about the halting problem. Of
course, a termination decider would solve the halting problem, so
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.
On 12/17/25 11:51 PM, olcott wrote:
On 12/17/2025 10:29 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 12/17/25 9:15 AM, olcott wrote:
On 12/17/2025 4:21 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 15/12/2025 16:01, olcott wrote:
On 12/15/2025 2:53 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 15/12/2025 02:31, olcott wrote:
Whenever any textbook says that a halt decider
must compute halting for machine M on input w
is it wrong. At best it only computes the halting
of M/w through the proxy of finite strings ⟨M⟩/w.
Turing machine deciders compute the mapping from
input finite strings to an accept or reject value
by some criterion measure.
Turing machine halt deciders compute the mapping
from input finite strings to a halt status on the
basis of the behavior that these finite strings
inputs actually specify.
There are no halt deciders so they don't actually do anything.
There are no halt only deciders because they are
defined as a category error.
The expression "halt only deciders" does not make sense. A decider
is a decider of one fieture of the input. It does not decide
anything else. What is that "only" intended to mean?
The above definition removes that category error.
It also removes the halting problem.
No halt decider can possibly report on the behavior
of a Turing machine they can only report on the
behavior that finite string inputs specify.
The input string specifies the behavour of a Truing machine and a
particular input to that Turing machine. Any other inpterpretation
is outside of the scope of the halting problem.
(a) TMs only transform input finite strings to values
using finite string transformation rules.
(b) Within finite string transformation rules input
P simulated by decider H is the ultimate measure of
the behavior that the input to H(P) specifies.
But that is incorrect, or you are lying that you are talking aboyut
halting.
The behavior of any TM is always measured through the proxy
of a finite string TM description.
Nope. You got a source for your claim?
It seems this is just another of your ZERO-Principle ideas that are just
you lying.
Of course, we CAN recover that behavior via the use of an actual UTM,
but the source of that behavior was ALWAYS the machine itself.
You just don't seem to understand where Truth comes from.
That is your definition of POOPing, not Halting.
Halting is determined by the behavior of a REAL UTM (one that doesn't
stop till it reachs the end) processing this input.
If there is no finite string transformation rules
from the input to H(P) to the behavior of P()
then the behavior of P() is outside of the scope
of Turing machine computations.
But there is, since UTMs exist, and they, by definition. exactly
replicate the behavior of running the machine the input describes.
All you are doing is proving you are incapible of learning basic
terms of the field you chose to claim expertise in.
Because no decider can determine about every pair of a Turing
machine and input there are no halting deciders.
On 12/18/2025 6:22 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 12/18/25 12:26 AM, olcott wrote:
On 12/17/2025 11:08 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 12/17/25 11:57 PM, olcott wrote:
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
You are just showing you don't know what the wordw mean, because as
you have admitted, you retain the "right" to redefine any word you
want, which means semantics are meaningless in your logic.
I checked a termination analyzer need not be correct on
all programs yet must be correct for all inputs for at
least one program. That is what those words mean.
So the minimum bar is:
For at least one program: correctly determine
"yes, this halts for all inputs" OR "no, this
doesn't halt for some input"
You really need to give up some of that bluster
it makes you look quite foolish.
All you are doing is shouting from the mountain tops that you are just
an ignorant pathological liar.
On 12/17/2025 10:58 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 12/17/25 11:51 PM, olcott wrote:
On 12/17/2025 10:29 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 12/17/25 9:15 AM, olcott wrote:
On 12/17/2025 4:21 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 15/12/2025 16:01, olcott wrote:
On 12/15/2025 2:53 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 15/12/2025 02:31, olcott wrote:
Whenever any textbook says that a halt decider
must compute halting for machine M on input w
is it wrong. At best it only computes the halting
of M/w through the proxy of finite strings ⟨M⟩/w.
Turing machine deciders compute the mapping from
input finite strings to an accept or reject value
by some criterion measure.
Turing machine halt deciders compute the mapping
from input finite strings to a halt status on the
basis of the behavior that these finite strings
inputs actually specify.
There are no halt deciders so they don't actually do anything.
There are no halt only deciders because they are
defined as a category error.
The expression "halt only deciders" does not make sense. A decider >>>>>> is a decider of one fieture of the input. It does not decide
anything else. What is that "only" intended to mean?
The above definition removes that category error.
It also removes the halting problem.
No halt decider can possibly report on the behavior
of a Turing machine they can only report on the
behavior that finite string inputs specify.
The input string specifies the behavour of a Truing machine and a
particular input to that Turing machine. Any other inpterpretation >>>>>> is outside of the scope of the halting problem.
(a) TMs only transform input finite strings to values
using finite string transformation rules.
(b) Within finite string transformation rules input
P simulated by decider H is the ultimate measure of
the behavior that the input to H(P) specifies.
But that is incorrect, or you are lying that you are talking aboyut
halting.
The behavior of any TM is always measured through the proxy
of a finite string TM description.
Nope. You got a source for your claim?
It seems this is just another of your ZERO-Principle ideas that are
just you lying.
If you could try and show that I am wrong
and stop with the baseless pure as hominem
you would prove that I am correct on the
basis of the meaning of my words.
The behavior of any TM is always measured through
the proxy of a finite string TM description input.
If TMs took other TMs as input no other measure
would be required.
| Sysop: | DaiTengu |
|---|---|
| Location: | Appleton, WI |
| Users: | 1,090 |
| Nodes: | 10 (1 / 9) |
| Uptime: | 59:51:23 |
| Calls: | 13,948 |
| Calls today: | 1 |
| Files: | 187,035 |
| D/L today: |
2,695 files (773M bytes) |
| Messages: | 2,461,296 |