Deutsch   English   Français   Italiano  
<f6989bc28ef625e1e95cd7dbf8629af87db86ab3@i2pn2.org>

View for Bookmarking (what is this?)
Look up another Usenet article

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: Wed, 16 Oct 2024 07:44:32 -0400
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <f6989bc28ef625e1e95cd7dbf8629af87db86ab3@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>
 <6fdb980fa8a87d11abccb883dec7bfec58d02d7a@i2pn2.org>
 <venekv$22rqh$3@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 11:44:32 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="2284055"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg";
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <venekv$22rqh$3@dont-email.me>
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
Bytes: 6552
Lines: 110

On 10/16/24 12:15 AM, olcott wrote:
> On 10/15/2024 9:12 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> 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.
>>
> 
> When we use an industry standard definition of the termination
> of a C function we understand that this C function must reach
> its "return instruction".

Right, which it does.

> 
> Likewise the industry standard for correct x86 emulation means
> emulating the instructions of any input according to the semantics
> of the x86 language.
> 

To their end, at least if you want to use it to determine the final 
behavior of something.

The fact that all your HHH that answer has aborted there emulation, 
means that none of them have determined the actual final behavior of 
their inputs, all of which were different, as for "behavior" purposes, 
you must include in the definition of that input the full definition of 
EVERYTHING that input uses, and thus the definition of HHH, which is 
different for each HHH.

Thus, none of your HHH can look to the one input actually shown to be 
non-halting, the one emulated by the HHH that NEVER aborts, becuase that 
is a different input than what it was given.

Your trying to do so just proves that you are nothing but an ignorant lar.