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.