> ‘Correct'? In what sense? 'Correctness' and halting have little to do with each other.
Confident ignorance isn’t a good look. To help you out, here you go from the wiki[1]:
Within the latter notion, partial correctness, requiring that if an answer is returned it will be correct, is distinguished from total correctness, which additionally requires that an answer is eventually returned, i.e. the algorithm terminates.
To be fair to your time and mine—I stopped reading your reply there based on the principle that nonsense follows nonsense, so you needn’t elaborate further.
This is a non-productive comment. You said 'correctness', not 'total correctness'. Totality absolutely relates to halting. 'correctness' itself doesn't imply totality.
But regardless, it's pretty clear from your ramblings that you're not well-versed in this stuff. As for my part, I implement theorem provers and programming languages, so what do I know
Confident ignorance isn’t a good look. To help you out, here you go from the wiki[1]:
To be fair to your time and mine—I stopped reading your reply there based on the principle that nonsense follows nonsense, so you needn’t elaborate further.[1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correctness_(computer_scienc...