Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder9.news.weretis.net!news.nk.ca!rocksolid2!i2pn2.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: joes <noreply@example.org>
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: The actual truth is that ... industry standard stipulative
 definitions
Date: Tue, 15 Oct 2024 15:32:46 -0000 (UTC)
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <2b0f11fc589dd5816d74ff0b2543fb6cb771a4d8@i2pn2.org>
References: <ve39pb$24k00$1@dont-email.me> <veb557$3lbkf$2@dont-email.me>
	<2e6d8fc76e4e70decca1df44f49b338e61cc557e@i2pn2.org>
	<vebchp$3m87o$1@dont-email.me>
	<1071eb58637e27c9b2b99052ddb14701a147d23a@i2pn2.org>
	<vebeu2$3mp5v$1@dont-email.me>
	<58fef4e221da8d8bc3c274b9ee4d6b7b5dd82990@i2pn2.org>
	<vebmta$3nqde$1@dont-email.me>
	<99541b6e95dc30204bf49057f8f4c4496fbcc3db@i2pn2.org>
	<vedb3s$3g3a$1@dont-email.me> <vedibm$4891$2@dont-email.me>
	<72315c1456c399b2121b3fffe90b933be73e39b6@i2pn2.org>
	<vee6s1$7l0f$1@dont-email.me>
	<1180775691cf24be4a082676bc531877147202e3@i2pn2.org>
	<veec23$8jnq$1@dont-email.me>
	<c81fcbf97a35bd428495b0e70f3b54e545e8ae59@i2pn2.org>
	<vef37r$bknp$2@dont-email.me>
	<7e79306e9771378b032e6832548eeef7429888c4@i2pn2.org>
	<veikaf$14fb3$1@dont-email.me> <veipmb$15764$2@dont-email.me>
	<c56fcfcf793d65bebd7d17db4fccafd1b8dea072@i2pn2.org>
	<vejfg0$1879f$3@dont-email.me> <velajq$1l69v$1@dont-email.me>
	<velnfc$1n3gb$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Tue, 15 Oct 2024 15:32:46 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="2155708"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="nS1KMHaUuWOnF/ukOJzx6Ssd8y16q9UPs1GZ+I3D0CM";
User-Agent: Pan/0.145 (Duplicitous mercenary valetism; d7e168a
 git.gnome.org/pan2)
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
Bytes: 4633
Lines: 57

Am Tue, 15 Oct 2024 07:33:47 -0500 schrieb olcott:
> On 10/15/2024 3:54 AM, Mikko wrote:
>> On 2024-10-14 16:05:20 +0000, olcott said:
>> 
>>> A stipulative definition is a type of definition in which a new or
>>> currently existing term is given a new specific meaning for the
>>> purposes of argument or discussion in a given context.
>>> *Disagreeing with a stipulative definition is incorrect*
>> The Wikipedia page does not say that. It only says that a stipulative
>> definition itself cannot be correct.
> If X cannot be incorrect then disagreeing that X is correct is
> incorrect.
Stipulative definitions can also not be correct. Correctness is simply
out of scope. It can be rejected though. Is your best defense really
"it has no truth value"?

>> It says nothing about disagreement.
>> In particular, one may diagree with the usefulness of a stipulative
>> definition.
> It seems that my reviewers on this forum make being disagreeable a top
> priority.
Disagreeing with wrongness, indeed.

>> The article also says that the scope of a stipulative definition is
>> restricted to an argument or discussion in given context.
> Once a stipulated definition is provided by its author it continues to
> apply to every use of this term when properly qualified.
> A *non_terminating_C_function* is C a function that cannot possibly
> reach its own "return" instruction  (final state) thus never terminates.
And not a function that can't be simulated by HHH.

> A *correct_x86_emulation* of non-terminating inputs includes at least N
> steps of *correct_x86_emulation*.
This qualifies only as a partial simulation. A correct simulation may
not terminate.

> DDD *correctly_emulated_by* HHH refers to a *correct_x86_emulation*.
> This also adds that HHH is emulating itself emulating DDD at least once.
> When HHH is an x86 emulation based termination analyzer then each DDD
> *correctly_emulated_by* any HHH that it calls never returns.
And HHH is not a decider.
> Each of the directly executed HHH emulator/analyzers that returns 0
> correctly reports the above *non_terminating _behavior* of its input.

> When evaluating the external truth of my stipulated definition premises
> and thus the soundness of my reasoning
Aha! Your premises *can* be false.

> one cannot change the subject away from the termination analysis of C
> functions to the halt deciders of the theory of computation this too is
> the strawman deception.
Not happening. You are the one claiming to have implemented a halting
decider. Your work is related more to the HP than to the termination
analysis of general functions.

-- 
Am Sat, 20 Jul 2024 12:35:31 +0000 schrieb WM in sci.math:
It is not guaranteed that n+1 exists for every n.