Path: ...!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 22:12:04 -0400
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <e690990c46ed54f5d01fd630a2b8b9033e757fa5@i2pn2.org>
References: <ve39pb$24k00$1@dont-email.me> <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>
 <2b0f11fc589dd5816d74ff0b2543fb6cb771a4d8@i2pn2.org>
 <vemf6s$1q255$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 02:12:04 -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: <vemf6s$1q255$2@dont-email.me>
Content-Language: en-US
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
Bytes: 7015
Lines: 126

On 10/15/24 3:18 PM, olcott wrote:
> 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.

Except that you stipulative definition are a violation of the rule of 
the system you are trying to stipulate them.

The rules override you stipulation (or you are just stipulating that you 
are not working in the system, and thus can't use any of its truths 
unless otherwise proven)

> 
>>>> 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.
>>
> 
> ???


Because your HHH can't correctly emulate itself to find out what it does.

> 
>>> 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?

So? It is the non-termination of the full emulation that shows that the 
input is non-terminating.

What a typical analyser needs to do is use logic to determine that such 
a full emulation will not halt.

Note, for your DDD, that means prove that the DDD that calls the HHH 
that gives the answer does not halt (but since it does, you can't do 
that). This sort of proof tends to require something like a valid induction.


> 
>>> 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?
> 
>>> 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.

Nope, as "Termination" is a property of PROGRAM not just C functions, 
unless they can also meet the requirements of being a Computer Science 
Program, which means they are condidered to contain ALL the code they use.

DDD is not such a function unless you include as part of its definition 
the full definition of the behavior of the HHH that it is calling (and 
thus HHH can not assume it might behave diffferent then what the HHH 
that is actually being asked does).

Thus, you can neither redefine the criteria for HHH and still call it 
termination, or say that the input is restricted to just the code of the 
C function DDD.

Sorry, you are just WRONG, and your refuse to undertstand this makes you 
STUPID.

> 
>>> 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.
> 

Nope, they see that this is one of the basis of your own arguement, 
which is why you need to try to change the definitions in the system.