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

On 10/14/24 9:12 PM, olcott wrote:

On 10/14/2024 6:50 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 10/14/24 12:05 PM, olcott wrote:

On 10/14/2024 6:21 AM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 10/14/24 5:53 AM, olcott wrote:

On 10/14/2024 3:21 AM, Mikko wrote:

On 2024-10-13 12:49:01 +0000, Richard Damon said:
>

On 10/12/24 8:11 PM, olcott wrote:

On 10/12/2024 3:25 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 10/12/24 1:36 PM, olcott wrote:

On 10/12/2024 12:13 PM, joes wrote:

Am Sat, 12 Oct 2024 11:07:29 -0500 schrieb olcott:

On 10/12/2024 9:43 AM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 10/12/24 6:17 AM, olcott wrote:

On 10/12/2024 3:13 AM, Mikko wrote:

On 2024-10-11 21:13:18 +0000, joes said:

Am Fri, 11 Oct 2024 12:22:50 -0500 schrieb olcott:

On 10/11/2024 12:11 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 10/11/24 11:06 AM, olcott wrote:

On 10/11/2024 9:54 AM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 10/11/24 10:26 AM, olcott wrote:

On 10/11/2024 8:05 AM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 10/11/24 8:19 AM, olcott wrote:

On 10/11/2024 6:04 AM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 10/10/24 9:57 PM, olcott wrote:

On 10/10/2024 8:39 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 10/10/24 6:19 PM, olcott wrote:

On 10/10/2024 2:26 PM, wij wrote:

On Thu, 2024-10-10 at 17:05 +0000, Alan Mackenzie wrote:

Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> wrote:

On 2024-10-09 19:34:34 +0000, Alan Mackenzie said:

Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> wrote:

On 10/8/24 8:49 AM, Andy Walker wrote:

>

As soon you find out that they repeat the same over
and over, neither correcting their substantial errors
nor improving their arguments you have read enough.

olcott deliberately lies (he knows what is told, he
choose to distort). olcott

When the behavior of DDD emulated by HHH is the measure
then:

But since it isn't, your whole argument falls apart.

Ah a breakthrough.

And an admission that you are just working on a lie.

Perhaps you are unaware of how valid deductive inference
works.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deductive_reasoning
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man You can disagree that
the premise to my reasoning is true.
By changing my premise as the basis of your rebuttal you
commit the strawman error.

So, how do you get from the DEFINITION of Halting being a
behavior of the actual machine, to something that can be
talked about by a PARTIAL emulation with a different final
behavior.

My whole point in this thread is that it is incorrect for you
to say that my reasoning is invalid on the basis that you do
not agree with one of my premises.

The issue isn't that your premise is "incorrect", but it is
INVALID,
as it is based on the redefinition of fundamental words.

Premises cannot be invalid.

Of course they can be invalid,

It is a type mismatch error. Premises cannot be invalid.

So "af;kldsanflksadhtfawieohfnapio" is a valid premise?

"valid" is a term-of-the-art of deductive logical inference. When the
subject is deductive logical inference one cannot substitute the common
meaning for the term-of-the-art meaning.
This is a fallacy of equivocation error.

So "af;kldsanflksadhtfawieohfnapio" is an invalid premise?
>

>
"invalid" referring to a premise within the terms-of-the-art
of deductive logical inference is a type mismatch error use
of the term.
>
One could correctly say that a premise is untrue because
it is gibberish. One can never correctly say that a premise
is invalid within the terms-of-the-art.
>

>
No, untrue isn't the normal term of art, except it tri- (or other multi-) valued logics.
>

>
Within ordinary deductive logic there seems to be
no such thing as an invalid premise. Mathematical
logic may do this differently.

>
Nope, You just don't understand logic. Within Formal Logic there is a concept of an invalid premise, being a premise that can not have a logical interpretation.
>
Part of the problem is you don't seem to understand that words DO have multiple meanings, and you need to use the right one for the context.

>
The meaning of invalid is basically the same: a thing is invalid if it is
not what it is claimed or required to be. The differences in definitions
are just adaptations to the details of different requirements.
>

>
*Validity and Soundness*
A deductive argument is said to be valid if and only if it takes a form that makes it impossible for the premises to be true and the conclusion nevertheless to be false. Otherwise, a deductive argument is said to be invalid.
>
A deductive argument is sound if and only if it is both valid, and all of its premises are actually true. Otherwise, a deductive argument is unsound.
>
https://iep.utm.edu/val-snd/
>

>
And, your "premise" isn't actually a statement of fact,

>
Before we can move forward on this we must be using terminology
in the same way. You have to stop being so sloppy in your use of
terminology.
>
Within the analytical framework that I am using deductive
logical inference, calling a premise invalid is incorrect.

>
No, it is a term I used to apply to a premise that could not be used because it had no meaning in the system.
>
You are attempting to create a definition of a term that is already defind.
>
That is just INVALID.
>

>
Trying to change to a different analytical framework than
the one that I am stipulating is the strawman deception.
*Essentially an intentional fallacy of equivocation error*
>

>
But, you claim to be working on that Halting Problem,

 I quit claiming this many messages ago and you didn't
bother to notice.

No, you keep on using ts terminology, since "Terminating" has the same meaning, in fact, when you mentioned the termination problem and termination analysis you put your self into a tougher problem, as while Halting is about a specific program and a specific program pair together, termination analysis is about a specific program being given *ANY* input, and thus can't be processed by pure simulaiton, since you don't know what the input is to the program.
IT DOES NOT MEAN SOMETHING ELSE, like some lessor standard.  You might be confused because the field, from its founding, admits that the full problem can not be solved, so often omits the descriptor "partial" on a termination analyzer, as it is known to be assumed, and always is talking about methods that can answer in SOME conditions. The answer is STILL about the behavior of a program.
The fact that you think by switching to "Termination Analysis" gives you an easier problem just shows that you don't understand what you are talking about.

 void DDD()
{
   HHH(DDD);
   return;
}
 When HHH is an x86 emulation based termination analyzer
then each DDD emulated by any HHH that it calls never returns.

Equivocal statement the way you use it.
Lets look at the key phrase "DDD emulated by any HHH"
What are you talking about,
The fact that you later talk about it "never retuns" would imply that you are looking at the full behavior of the program, as the partial behavior of a partial emulation doesn't have properties of "never". It does have didn't yet, and the like, but that isn't your claim.
But, it seems you want to have that phrase refer to the partial emulation done by HHH  (partial because you definition of HHH implies that it DOES give an answer, and thus must be coded to abort its emulation as you have shown). The problem here is that partial emulation doesn't have the property of "never" as  your sentence uses.

 Each of the directly executed HHH emulator/analyzers that returns
0 correctly reports the above non-terminating behavior of its input.
 

Nope, since every DDD that calls the same code as that directly executed HHH does return, and THAT IS the definition of the termination status of that program. It can not refer to the monstrosity you try to refer to in the second interpretation of your statement, as that isn't a valid property.