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

On 10/16/24 12:03 AM, olcott wrote:

On 10/15/2024 9:12 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

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.
>

  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. When the term already exists, this definition may, but does not necessarily, contradict the dictionary (lexical) definition of the term. Because of this, a
stipulative definition cannot be "correct" or "incorrect"; it can only differ from other definitions, but it can be useful for its intended purpose.

But, the ACTUAL definition of a Formal System says it includes the definitions of its defined terms, and those can not be changed.
So, if you try to change one of them "for the purpose of an arguement" about something in a Formal System that disagreees with that Formal System, you have just kicked yourself out of that Formal System, and made yourself a LIAR.
This seems to be something you don't undetstand. You don't get to change the pre-defined rules of the Formal System you are in.

 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stipulative_definition
 stipulative definition cannot be "correct" or "incorrect";
stipulative definition cannot be "correct" or "incorrect";
stipulative definition cannot be "correct" or "incorrect";
stipulative definition cannot be "correct" or "incorrect";
 Thus saying that it is incorrect is incorrect.
 

And saying you can stipulate a definition that is in contradiction to thje formal system you are in is just a lie.,
Stipulative Definitions CAN be incorrect if they define things contrary to the nature of the field of discourse, because you can't change the meaning of the field of discourse.
You seem very strongly trying to assert your right to LIE with your definitions.
Even if allowed, all it means is that because you changed the meaning to something different, for the fullness of your arguement (which includes everything afterwards) you have divorsed yourself from the field and its meaning, so by stipulating a definition of termination that is based on a different definition of program/function, you can NEVER assert that you have disproven anything in the field that talks about "programs" or "function" because you stipulated yourself away from that,
Sorry, THAT is way you aren't allowed to stipulate contrary definitions in a formal system, and your claims that you can just prove you to be an ignorant liar.