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

On 10/19/24 6:57 AM, olcott wrote:

On 10/19/2024 3:45 AM, Mikko wrote:

On 2024-10-16 17:13:12 +0000, olcott said:
>

On 10/16/2024 3:05 AM, Mikko wrote:

On 2024-10-16 03:52:00 +0000, olcott said:
>

On 10/15/2024 9:11 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 10/15/24 8:39 AM, olcott wrote:

On 10/15/2024 4:58 AM, joes wrote:

Am Mon, 14 Oct 2024 20:12:37 -0500 schrieb olcott:

On 10/14/2024 6:50 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 10/14/24 12:05 PM, olcott wrote:

On 10/14/2024 6:21 AM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 10/14/24 5:53 AM, olcott wrote:

On 10/14/2024 3:21 AM, Mikko wrote:

On 2024-10-13 12:49:01 +0000, Richard Damon said:

On 10/12/24 8:11 PM, olcott wrote:

>

Trying to change to a different analytical framework than the one that
I am stipulating is the strawman deception. *Essentially an
intentional fallacy of equivocation error*

But, you claim to be working on that Halting Problem,

I quit claiming this many messages ago and you didn't bother to notice.

Can you please give the date and time? Did you also explicitly disclaim
it or just silently leave it out?
>

>
Even people of low intelligence that are not trying to
be as disagreeable as possible would be able to notice
that a specified C function is not a Turing machine.

>
But it needs to be computationally equivalent to one to ask about Termination.
>

>
Not at all.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pure_function
A termination analyzer need not be a Turing computable function.

>
There is no known way to construct one that isn't. No computer can
execute a function that is not Turing computable.

>
In other words you think that functions that
rely on global data such that they are not a
pure function of their inputs are A OK?

>
Your "In other words" is a lie.
>
What is OK depends on the purpose.
>

 Everyone focuses so much on rebuttal at the expense
of mutual agreement of even what the words mean that
I can't tell what you mean when you say things.
 

WHy should we agree to statements that are contradictory to fact, or irrelevent BY DEFINITION to the problem, as they force the discussion to be outside the required logic system.
The fact that you don't understand what we say when we use the standard definition of the words just shows how totally ignorant you are of the rules of the logic.