Path: ...!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: olcott <polcott333@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: The actual truth is that ... industry standard stipulative
 definitions
Date: Tue, 15 Oct 2024 14:18:52 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 85
Message-ID: <vemf6s$1q255$2@dont-email.me>
References: <ve39pb$24k00$1@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>
 <2b0f11fc589dd5816d74ff0b2543fb6cb771a4d8@i2pn2.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Date: Tue, 15 Oct 2024 21:18:53 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="6ebbafc8de1d261770d7d4f83dd30cde";
	logging-data="1902757"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/TrUCNfRSqyxQB1Y2mmi8h"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:mHElinu/s3zrOsT5k5GSd1vgGeY=
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <2b0f11fc589dd5816d74ff0b2543fb6cb771a4d8@i2pn2.org>
Bytes: 5432

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.

>>> 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.
> 

A full emulation of a non-terminating input is logically
impossible. Do you not know this?

>> 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.

>> 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.

-- 
Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer