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 22:12:08 -0400
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <95490866a3a4aaf7de570e2e8a4d8a870dac60e3@i2pn2.org>
References: <ve39pb$24k00$1@dont-email.me> <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>
 <f1b31ea7b3f37ed99734b1f07e4e488d25b8010d@i2pn2.org>
 <vemoqm$1roph$2@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 02:12:08 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="2226561"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg";
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
In-Reply-To: <vemoqm$1roph$2@dont-email.me>
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
Content-Language: en-US
Bytes: 5687
Lines: 79

On 10/15/24 6:03 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 10/15/2024 4:39 PM, joes wrote:
>> Am Tue, 15 Oct 2024 14:56:01 -0500 schrieb olcott:
>>> 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.
> 
>> WDYM "after"? 
> 
> The executed DDD begins its trace before HHH(DDD)
> is invoked.
> 
> The emulated DDD begins its trace only after HHH(DDD)
> is invoked.
> 
> This makes it possible for HHH(DDD) to return to DDD
> and impossible for any HHH(DDD) to return to any DDD.
>

Nope, since the emulated HHH in the emulation of DDD will do EXACTLY 
like the directly executed HHH, and thus that result is what a correct 
emulation needs to show.

Note, read you last statement.

You said that because it is possible of HHH(DDD) to return to DDD and 
also that it it impossible for any HHH(DDD) to return to DDD/

You just claimed something was POSSIBLE and IMPOSSIBLE at the same time.

Your logic system has been blown to smithereens due to its inconsistancy.

The fact that it is impossible for an HHH to emulated the DDD that calls 
the same exact function to get to the return statement is an irrelevent 
fact, it just provides a basis for HHH to need to guess at the answer if 
it aborts and gives one.

It shows that the property is a non-computable property, as there is a 
case for every decider that it can not get correct.

It shows your utter stupidity for saying that a wrong answer must be 
right. "just because" that is all it can do. Nothing says that it must 
be able to get the answer, as some (in fact mahy) problems in 
Computaiton Theory are just uncomputable, and that is in fact, the 
nature of the study of the field, what sort of things are and are not 
computable.