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

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