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

On 10/15/24 3:18 PM, olcott wrote:

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.

Except that you stipulative definition are a violation of the rule of the system you are trying to stipulate them.
The rules override you stipulation (or you are just stipulating that you are not working in the system, and thus can't use any of its truths unless otherwise proven)

 

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.
>

 ???

Because your HHH can't correctly emulate itself to find out what it does.

 

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?

So? It is the non-termination of the full emulation that shows that the input is non-terminating.
What a typical analyser needs to do is use logic to determine that such a full emulation will not halt.
Note, for your DDD, that means prove that the DDD that calls the HHH that gives the answer does not halt (but since it does, you can't do that). This sort of proof tends to require something like a valid induction.

 

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.

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.

 

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.
 

Nope, they see that this is one of the basis of your own arguement, which is why you need to try to change the definitions in the system.