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

On 10/16/24 12:15 AM, olcott wrote:

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

On 10/15/24 3:56 PM, olcott wrote:

On 10/15/2024 2:29 PM, joes wrote:

Am Tue, 15 Oct 2024 14:18:52 -0500 schrieb olcott:

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.

What is the same?
>

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.

???

Meaning, DDD is terminating function, because it reaches its return,
even though HHH can't simulate the call to itself (because a simulator
terminates only when its input does, so it can't halt simulating itself).
>

>
In other words you insist on failing to understand
that the behavior of DDD after HHH aborts its emulation
is different than the behavior that requires HHH to
abort its emulation.
>

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?

>

Of course. The simulation does not terminate.
>

>
Then you don't understand that the emulation of DDD
by HHH does not reach its own "return" instruction
BECAUSE DDD calld HHH in recursive 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.
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?

What else interesting is there about this?
>

>
Termination analyzer is the term that I have been
using for many months.
>

>
And using incorrectly.
>

 When we use an industry standard definition of the termination
of a C function we understand that this C function must reach
its "return instruction".

Right, which it does.

 Likewise the industry standard for correct x86 emulation means
emulating the instructions of any input according to the semantics
of the x86 language.
 

To their end, at least if you want to use it to determine the final behavior of something.
The fact that all your HHH that answer has aborted there emulation, means that none of them have determined the actual final behavior of their inputs, all of which were different, as for "behavior" purposes, you must include in the definition of that input the full definition of EVERYTHING that input uses, and thus the definition of HHH, which is different for each HHH.
Thus, none of your HHH can look to the one input actually shown to be non-halting, the one emulated by the HHH that NEVER aborts, becuase that is a different input than what it was given.
Your trying to do so just proves that you are nothing but an ignorant lar.