Re: The actual truth is that ... industry standard stipulative definitions

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 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.

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.

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.

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.

--
Am Sat, 20 Jul 2024 12:35:31 +0000 schrieb WM in sci.math:
It is not guaranteed that n+1 exists for every n.