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

On 10/15/24 8:33 AM, olcott wrote:

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. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stipulative_definition
>
*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.
 

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.
 

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.
A *non_terminating_x86_function* is the same idea applied to x86
functions having "ret" instructions. *non_terminating _behavior* refers
to the above definitions.
 It is stipulated that *correct_x86_emulation* means that a finite
string of x86 instructions is emulated according to the semantics
of the x86 language beginning with the first bytes of this string.
 A *correct_x86_emulation* of non-terminating inputs includes at
least N steps of *correct_x86_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.
 void DDD()
{
   HHH(DDD);
   return;
}
 When HHH is an x86 emulation based termination analyzer then
each DDD *correctly_emulated_by* any HHH that it calls never returns.

But, to do so, HHH can't abort is eulation, so doesn't answer, and thius isn't the HHH that you claim to correctly ans

 Each of the directly executed HHH emulator/analyzers that returns
0 correctly reports the above *non_terminating _behavior* of its input.

But, since the input isn't "non-terminating" per the definiton of the field, you are just WRONG.

 < It also

says that a conterargument may use a different stipulative definition
for the same term.
>

 When evaluating the the deductive validity of my reasoning
changing the premises is the strawman deception.
https://iep.utm.edu/val-snd/

And changing the criteria of terminating is a strawman deception on YOUR part.

 When evaluating the external truth of my stipulated definition
premises and thus the soundness of my reasoning

Which is INVALID, as it isn't compatible with the system, so can NEVER be true.

 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.

Right, which look at the FULL behavior of the function, and EVERYTHING the call, which means includes

 To the best of my knowledge all of my stipulative definitions
are consistent with the terms-of-the-art of the fields of the
termination analysis of C functions and x86 emulation.
 

Nope, as "Termination" is a property of PROGRAM not just C functions, unless they can also meet the requirements of being a Computer Science Program, which means they are condidered to contain ALL the code they use.
DDD is not such a function unless you include as part of its definition the full definition of the behavior of the HHH that it is calling (and thus HHH can not assume it might behave diffferent then what the HHH that is actually being asked does).
Thus, you can neither redefine the criteria for HHH and still call it termination, or say that the input is restricted to just the code of the C function DDD.
Sorry, you are just WRONG, and your refuse to undertstand this makes you STUPID.