Path: ...!news.misty.com!weretis.net!feeder9.news.weretis.net!i2pn.org!i2pn2.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org>
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: The actual truth is that ... industry standard stipulative
 definitions
Date: Tue, 15 Oct 2024 22:12:06 -0400
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <6fdb980fa8a87d11abccb883dec7bfec58d02d7a@i2pn2.org>
References: <ve39pb$24k00$1@dont-email.me> <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>
 <2b0f11fc589dd5816d74ff0b2543fb6cb771a4d8@i2pn2.org>
 <vemf6s$1q255$2@dont-email.me>
 <4f5ba7f3ff5e281c80d4f47cae3500528968d131@i2pn2.org>
 <vemhci$1qqfr$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Wed, 16 Oct 2024 02:12:06 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="2226561"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg";
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <vemhci$1qqfr$1@dont-email.me>
Bytes: 6714
Lines: 111

On 10/15/24 3:56 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 10/15/2024 2:29 PM, joes wrote:
>> Am Tue, 15 Oct 2024 14:18:52 -0500 schrieb olcott:
>>> On 10/15/2024 10:32 AM, joes wrote:
>>>> 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 is the same as verifying that a conclusion logically follows form its
>>> premises when hypothesizing that the premises are true.
>> What is the same?
>>
>>>>>> 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.
>>> ???
>> Meaning, DDD is terminating function, because it reaches its return,
>> even though HHH can't simulate the call to itself (because a simulator
>> terminates only when its input does, so it can't halt simulating itself).
>>
> 
> In other words you insist on failing to understand
> that the behavior of DDD after HHH aborts its emulation
> is different than the behavior that requires HHH to
> abort its emulation.
> 
>>>>> 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.
>>> A full emulation of a non-terminating input is logically impossible. Do
>>> you not know this?
> 
>> Of course. The simulation does not terminate.
>>
> 
> Then you don't understand that the emulation of DDD
> by HHH does not reach its own "return" instruction
> BECAUSE DDD calld HHH in recursive emulation?
> 
>>>>> 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.
>>> Where in my stipulated definitions did I ever refer to a decider?
>> What else interesting is there about this?
>>
> 
> Termination analyzer is the term that I have been
> using for many months.
> 

And using incorrectly.

>>>>> 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.
>>> Vert unlikely because they do conform to software engineering and
>>> termination analysis standard definitions.
> 
>> Just noting that your past dozen or so posts were useless and wrong.
>>
> 
> It seems dishonest of you yo refer to what I said in the past
> as the basis of your rebuttal to what I am saying now. At the
> very best it is the systematic error of bias.
> 
>>>>> 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.
>>> At least everyone will know that you are using the strawman deception in
>>> your rebuttal.
> 
>> What even IS your claim at this point?
>>
> 
> void DDD()
> {
>    HHH(DDD);
>    return;
> }
> 
> When HHH is an x86 emulation based termination analyzer then
> each DDD *correctly_emulated_by* any HHH that it calls never returns.
> 
> Each of the directly executed HHH emulator/analyzers that returns
> 0 correctly reports the above *non_terminating _behavior* of its input.
>