1. Forum
  2. Usenet
  3. COMP.THEORY

  • Re: The actual truth is that ... industry standard stipulative definiti

    From Richard Damon@21:1/5 to olcott on Mon Oct 14 19:50:17 2024
    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:
    On 10/12/2024 3:25 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
    On 10/12/24 1:36 PM, olcott wrote:
    On 10/12/2024 12:13 PM, joes wrote:
    Am Sat, 12 Oct 2024 11:07:29 -0500 schrieb olcott:
    On 10/12/2024 9:43 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
    On 10/12/24 6:17 AM, olcott wrote:
    On 10/12/2024 3:13 AM, Mikko wrote:
    On 2024-10-11 21:13:18 +0000, joes said:
    Am Fri, 11 Oct 2024 12:22:50 -0500 schrieb olcott: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 10/11/2024 12:11 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
    On 10/11/24 11:06 AM, olcott wrote:
    On 10/11/2024 9:54 AM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 10/11/24 10:26 AM, olcott wrote:
    On 10/11/2024 8:05 AM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 10/11/24 8:19 AM, olcott wrote:
    On 10/11/2024 6:04 AM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 10/10/24 9:57 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 10/10/2024 8:39 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 10/10/24 6:19 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 10/10/2024 2:26 PM, wij wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 2024-10-10 at 17:05 +0000, Alan >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Mackenzie wrote:
    Mikko <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2024-10-09 19:34:34 +0000, Alan Mackenzie >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> said:
    Richard Damon <[email protected]> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
    On 10/8/24 8:49 AM, Andy Walker wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    As soon you find out that they repeat the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> same over
    and over, neither correcting their >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> substantial errors
    nor improving their arguments you have read >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> enough.
    olcott deliberately lies (he knows what is >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> told, he
    choose to distort). olcott
    When the behavior of DDD emulated by HHH is the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> measure
    then:
    But since it isn't, your whole argument falls >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> apart.
    Ah a breakthrough.
    And an admission that you are just working on a lie. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Perhaps you are unaware of how valid deductive >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> inference
    works.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deductive_reasoning >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man You can >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> disagree that
    the premise to my reasoning is true. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> By changing my premise as the basis of your >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> rebuttal you
    commit the strawman error.
    So, how do you get from the DEFINITION of Halting >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> being a
    behavior of the actual machine, to something that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> can be
    talked about by a PARTIAL emulation with a different >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> final
    behavior.
    My whole point in this thread is that it is incorrect >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for you
    to say that my reasoning is invalid on the basis that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you do
    not agree with one of my premises.
    The issue isn't that your premise is "incorrect", but >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it is
    INVALID,
    as it is based on the redefinition of fundamental words. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Premises cannot be invalid.
    Of course they can be invalid,
    It is a type mismatch error. Premises cannot be invalid. >>>>>>>>>>> So "af;kldsanflksadhtfawieohfnapio" is a valid premise?
    "valid" is a term-of-the-art of deductive logical inference. >>>>>>>>>> When the
    subject is deductive logical inference one cannot substitute >>>>>>>>>> the common
    meaning for the term-of-the-art meaning.
    This is a fallacy of equivocation error.
    So "af;kldsanflksadhtfawieohfnapio" is an invalid premise?


    "invalid" referring to a premise within the terms-of-the-art
    of deductive logical inference is a type mismatch error use
    of the term.

    One could correctly say that a premise is untrue because
    it is gibberish. One can never correctly say that a premise
    is invalid within the terms-of-the-art.


    No, untrue isn't the normal term of art, except it tri- (or other >>>>>>> multi-) valued logics.


    Within ordinary deductive logic there seems to be
    no such thing as an invalid premise. Mathematical
    logic may do this differently.

    Nope, You just don't understand logic. Within Formal Logic there is
    a concept of an invalid premise, being a premise that can not have
    a logical interpretation.

    Part of the problem is you don't seem to understand that words DO
    have multiple meanings, and you need to use the right one for the
    context.

    The meaning of invalid is basically the same: a thing is invalid if
    it is
    not what it is claimed or required to be. The differences in
    definitions
    are just adaptations to the details of different requirements.


    *Validity and Soundness*
    A deductive argument is said to be valid if and only if it takes a
    form that makes it impossible for the premises to be true and the
    conclusion nevertheless to be false. Otherwise, a deductive argument
    is said to be invalid.

    A deductive argument is sound if and only if it is both valid, and
    all of its premises are actually true. Otherwise, a deductive
    argument is unsound.

    https://iep.utm.edu/val-snd/


    And, your "premise" isn't actually a statement of fact,

    Before we can move forward on this we must be using terminology
    in the same way. You have to stop being so sloppy in your use of
    terminology.

    Within the analytical framework that I am using deductive
    logical inference, calling a premise invalid is incorrect.

    No, it is a term I used to apply to a premise that could not be used
    because it had no meaning in the system.

    You are attempting to create a definition of a term that is already defind.

    That is just INVALID.


    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, so the analytical framework is DEFINED, and can not be changed.

    Trying to do that is just INVALID.

    I start with premises that are stipulated to be true
    and apply true preserving operations to these premises
    thus deriving a deductively sound conclusion.

    And that premis is INVALID because it is in direct contradiction to the
    rules of the system.


    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

    Right, but, in a formal system you can not "stipulate" a defimition that
    is contrary to the terms of art in the system.


    *Disagreeing with a stipulative definition is incorrect*

    Pointing out that the definition are invalid is not.

    YOU are "incorrect" to try to stipulate them.


    My stipulative definition that a C function only terminates
    when it reaches its return statement is industry standard
    in the field of the termination analysis of C functions.

    Right, but the behavior, to be a property of the function, means that
    all the behavior of the function, and everything it calls needs to be
    taken into account. And, as has been shown, the C function DDD does
    return when it is calling the same code of HHH that returned 0 from
    HHH(DDD), so by your admitted critrea, DDD is Halting.


    My stipulative definition of the correct emulation of the
    x86 code of a C function by an emulator is also industry
    standard for x86 emulators.

    Except that your stipulation of "correct emulation" is in violation of
    the ACTUAL DEFINITION needed to apply emulation as a replacement for
    direct execution, Yes, some fields consider partial emulations to be
    able to be called "correct" but those fields also don't consider the
    fact that the simulation didn't reach the end state as an indication
    that the machine being emulated in non-halting.

    Again, you are just proving that you don't understand what you are
    talking about. Your problem is you have no concept of context, because
    you don't seem to actually understand anything, but just seemed to have
    learned a few scattered tidbits by rote. (Which is probably why you
    accuse everyone else of just knowing by rote, as you seem to like to
    project).


    HHH correctly emulates the x86 machine code bytes of its
    input DDD in the order that they specify beginning with
    the first bytes. Control flow instructions can and do alter
    the linear first to last order. When the emulated DDD calls
    HHH then HHH emulates itself emulating DDD.


    Right, and then gives up before it can determine the correct answer,
    becuase it needs to in order to be a decider.

    That need to abort does NOT negate the requirement for it to actually
    determine the behavior of the full correct emulation to be correct.

    Since HHH DOES abort and return 0, this DDD also calls an HHH that
    aborts its emulation and returns to it, and thus the CORRECT behavior
    for DDD is halting.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Mikko@21:1/5 to olcott on Tue Oct 15 11:54:18 2024
    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. It says nothing about disagreement.
    In particular, one may diagree with the usefulness of a stipulative
    definition.

    The article also says that the scope of a stipulative definition is
    restricted to an argument or discussion in given context. It also
    says that a conterargument may use a different stipulative definition
    for the same term.

    --
    Mikko

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From joes@21:1/5 to All on Tue Oct 15 09:58:30 2024
    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?

    When HHH is an x86 emulation based termination analyzer then each DDD emulated by any HHH that it calls never returns.
    Because emulators (correctly) don't abort, so the emulated emulator isn't terminating.

    Each of the directly executed HHH emulator/analyzers that returns 0
    correctly reports the above non-terminating behavior of its input.
    --
    Am Sat, 20 Jul 2024 12:35:31 +0000 schrieb WM in sci.math:
    It is not guaranteed that n+1 exists for every n.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Richard Damon@21:1/5 to olcott on Tue Oct 15 07:34:59 2024
    On 10/14/24 9:12 PM, olcott wrote:
    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:
    On 10/12/2024 3:25 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
    On 10/12/24 1:36 PM, olcott wrote:
    On 10/12/2024 12:13 PM, joes wrote:
    Am Sat, 12 Oct 2024 11:07:29 -0500 schrieb olcott:
    On 10/12/2024 9:43 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
    On 10/12/24 6:17 AM, olcott wrote:
    On 10/12/2024 3:13 AM, Mikko wrote:
    On 2024-10-11 21:13:18 +0000, joes said:
    Am Fri, 11 Oct 2024 12:22:50 -0500 schrieb olcott: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 10/11/2024 12:11 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 10/11/24 11:06 AM, olcott wrote:
    On 10/11/2024 9:54 AM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 10/11/24 10:26 AM, olcott wrote:
    On 10/11/2024 8:05 AM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 10/11/24 8:19 AM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 10/11/2024 6:04 AM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 10/10/24 9:57 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 10/10/2024 8:39 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 10/10/24 6:19 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 10/10/2024 2:26 PM, wij wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 2024-10-10 at 17:05 +0000, Alan >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Mackenzie wrote:
    Mikko <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2024-10-09 19:34:34 +0000, Alan >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Mackenzie said:
    Richard Damon <[email protected]> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
    On 10/8/24 8:49 AM, Andy Walker wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    As soon you find out that they repeat the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> same over
    and over, neither correcting their >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> substantial errors >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> nor improving their arguments you have >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> read enough.
    olcott deliberately lies (he knows what is >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> told, he
    choose to distort). olcott >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> When the behavior of DDD emulated by HHH is >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the measure
    then:
    But since it isn't, your whole argument falls >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> apart.
    Ah a breakthrough.
    And an admission that you are just working on a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> lie.
    Perhaps you are unaware of how valid deductive >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> inference
    works.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deductive_reasoning >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man You can >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> disagree that
    the premise to my reasoning is true. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> By changing my premise as the basis of your >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> rebuttal you
    commit the strawman error.
    So, how do you get from the DEFINITION of Halting >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> being a
    behavior of the actual machine, to something that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> can be
    talked about by a PARTIAL emulation with a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> different final
    behavior.
    My whole point in this thread is that it is >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> incorrect for you
    to say that my reasoning is invalid on the basis >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that you do
    not agree with one of my premises.
    The issue isn't that your premise is "incorrect", >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> but it is
    INVALID,
    as it is based on the redefinition of fundamental >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> words.
    Premises cannot be invalid.
    Of course they can be invalid,
    It is a type mismatch error. Premises cannot be invalid. >>>>>>>>>>>>> So "af;kldsanflksadhtfawieohfnapio" is a valid premise? >>>>>>>>>>>> "valid" is a term-of-the-art of deductive logical inference. >>>>>>>>>>>> When the
    subject is deductive logical inference one cannot substitute >>>>>>>>>>>> the common
    meaning for the term-of-the-art meaning.
    This is a fallacy of equivocation error.
    So "af;kldsanflksadhtfawieohfnapio" is an invalid premise? >>>>>>>>>>>

    "invalid" referring to a premise within the terms-of-the-art >>>>>>>>>> of deductive logical inference is a type mismatch error use >>>>>>>>>> of the term.

    One could correctly say that a premise is untrue because
    it is gibberish. One can never correctly say that a premise >>>>>>>>>> is invalid within the terms-of-the-art.


    No, untrue isn't the normal term of art, except it tri- (or
    other multi-) valued logics.


    Within ordinary deductive logic there seems to be
    no such thing as an invalid premise. Mathematical
    logic may do this differently.

    Nope, You just don't understand logic. Within Formal Logic there >>>>>>> is a concept of an invalid premise, being a premise that can not >>>>>>> have a logical interpretation.

    Part of the problem is you don't seem to understand that words DO >>>>>>> have multiple meanings, and you need to use the right one for the >>>>>>> context.

    The meaning of invalid is basically the same: a thing is invalid
    if it is
    not what it is claimed or required to be. The differences in
    definitions
    are just adaptations to the details of different requirements.


    *Validity and Soundness*
    A deductive argument is said to be valid if and only if it takes a
    form that makes it impossible for the premises to be true and the
    conclusion nevertheless to be false. Otherwise, a deductive
    argument is said to be invalid.

    A deductive argument is sound if and only if it is both valid, and
    all of its premises are actually true. Otherwise, a deductive
    argument is unsound.

    https://iep.utm.edu/val-snd/


    And, your "premise" isn't actually a statement of fact,

    Before we can move forward on this we must be using terminology
    in the same way. You have to stop being so sloppy in your use of
    terminology.

    Within the analytical framework that I am using deductive
    logical inference, calling a premise invalid is incorrect.

    No, it is a term I used to apply to a premise that could not be used
    because it had no meaning in the system.

    You are attempting to create a definition of a term that is already
    defind.

    That is just INVALID.


    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.

    No, you keep on using ts terminology, since "Terminating" has the same
    meaning, in fact, when you mentioned the termination problem and
    termination analysis you put your self into a tougher problem, as while
    Halting is about a specific program and a specific program pair
    together, termination analysis is about a specific program being given
    *ANY* input, and thus can't be processed by pure simulaiton, since you
    don't know what the input is to the program.

    IT DOES NOT MEAN SOMETHING ELSE, like some lessor standard. You might
    be confused because the field, from its founding, admits that the full
    problem can not be solved, so often omits the descriptor "partial" on a termination analyzer, as it is known to be assumed, and always is
    talking about methods that can answer in SOME conditions. The answer is
    STILL about the behavior of a program.

    The fact that you think by switching to "Termination Analysis" gives you
    an easier problem just shows that you don't understand what you are
    talking about.


    void DDD()
    {
      HHH(DDD);
      return;
    }

    When HHH is an x86 emulation based termination analyzer
    then each DDD emulated by any HHH that it calls never returns.

    Equivocal statement the way you use it.

    Lets look at the key phrase "DDD emulated by any HHH"

    What are you talking about,

    The fact that you later talk about it "never retuns" would imply that
    you are looking at the full behavior of the program, as the partial
    behavior of a partial emulation doesn't have properties of "never". It
    does have didn't yet, and the like, but that isn't your claim.

    But, it seems you want to have that phrase refer to the partial
    emulation done by HHH (partial because you definition of HHH implies
    that it DOES give an answer, and thus must be coded to abort its
    emulation as you have shown). The problem here is that partial emulation doesn't have the property of "never" as your sentence uses.


    Each of the directly executed HHH emulator/analyzers that returns
    0 correctly reports the above non-terminating behavior of its input.



    Nope, since every DDD that calls the same code as that directly executed
    HHH does return, and THAT IS the definition of the termination status of
    that program. It can not refer to the monstrosity you try to refer to in
    the second interpretation of your statement, as that isn't a valid property.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From joes@21:1/5 to All on Tue Oct 15 15:32:46 2024
    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 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.

    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.

    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.
    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.

    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.

    --
    Am Sat, 20 Jul 2024 12:35:31 +0000 schrieb WM in sci.math:
    It is not guaranteed that n+1 exists for every n.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From joes@21:1/5 to All on Tue Oct 15 15:20:34 2024
    Am Tue, 15 Oct 2024 07:39:51 -0500 schrieb olcott:
    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:

    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.
    They would also be able to notice that this can't be what I meant.
    Also, wrong thread. Please refer me to the message where you stopped
    claiming working on the halting problem.

    --
    Am Sat, 20 Jul 2024 12:35:31 +0000 schrieb WM in sci.math:
    It is not guaranteed that n+1 exists for every n.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From joes@21:1/5 to All on Tue Oct 15 19:29:03 2024
    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).

    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.

    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?

    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.
    Just noting that your past dozen or so posts were useless and wrong.

    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.
    What even IS your claim at this point?

    --
    Am Sat, 20 Jul 2024 12:35:31 +0000 schrieb WM in sci.math:
    It is not guaranteed that n+1 exists for every n.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From joes@21:1/5 to All on Tue Oct 15 21:39:56 2024
    Am Tue, 15 Oct 2024 14:56:01 -0500 schrieb olcott:
    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.
    WDYM "after"? DDD has time-invariant behaviour may or may not involve
    HHH aborting at the programmers discretion. But there is only a single
    HHH (even though it may be called in multiple stack frames) which
    either does or doesn't. The sequencing you are alluding to only
    occurs in the reasoning: if HHH were to abort, DDD would be halting
    and it wouldn't have needed aborting: contradiction.

    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?
    It has nothing to do with DDD - it halts exactly iff HHH does.
    No simulator can completely simulate itself, like Fred said. Although
    it could detect it is simulating itself, abort, and return that it halts.

    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.
    So what? We are still discussing the same DDD, which we want the
    correct termination status of, and we want HHH to halt. Nothing changed.

    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.
    Just noting that your past dozen or so posts were useless and wrong.
    It seems dishonest of you yo refer to what I said in the past as the
    basis of your rebuttal to what I am saying now. At the very best it is
    the systematic error of bias.
    You could be honest and admit that you were wrong about premises not
    being able to be wrong.

    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.
    What even IS your claim at this point?
    When HHH is an x86 emulation based termination analyzer then each DDD *correctly_emulated_by* any HHH that it calls never returns.
    Each of the directly executed HHH emulator/analyzers that returns 0
    correctly reports the above *non_terminating _behavior* of its input.
    Ah, that is still wrong, because the input DDD halts.

    --
    Am Sat, 20 Jul 2024 12:35:31 +0000 schrieb WM in sci.math:
    It is not guaranteed that n+1 exists for every n.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Richard Damon@21:1/5 to olcott on Tue Oct 15 22:11:55 2024
    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.

    You just don't seem to understand that implication. Termination is about "Computations" (more informally called Programs), and all computations
    are the equivalent of a Turing Machine.


    When HHH is an x86 emulation based termination analyzer then each DDD
    emulated by any HHH that it calls never returns.
    Because emulators (correctly) don't abort, so the emulated emulator isn't
    terminating.

    Each of the directly executed HHH emulator/analyzers that returns 0
    correctly reports the above non-terminating behavior of its input.



    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Richard Damon@21:1/5 to olcott on Tue Oct 15 22:12:00 2024
    On 10/15/24 8:37 AM, olcott wrote:
    On 10/15/2024 6:34 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
    On 10/14/24 9:12 PM, olcott wrote:
    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:
    On 10/12/2024 3:25 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
    On 10/12/24 1:36 PM, olcott wrote:
    On 10/12/2024 12:13 PM, joes wrote:
    Am Sat, 12 Oct 2024 11:07:29 -0500 schrieb olcott:
    On 10/12/2024 9:43 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
    On 10/12/24 6:17 AM, olcott wrote:
    On 10/12/2024 3:13 AM, Mikko wrote:
    On 2024-10-11 21:13:18 +0000, joes said:
    Am Fri, 11 Oct 2024 12:22:50 -0500 schrieb olcott: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 10/11/2024 12:11 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 10/11/24 11:06 AM, olcott wrote:
    On 10/11/2024 9:54 AM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 10/11/24 10:26 AM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 10/11/2024 8:05 AM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 10/11/24 8:19 AM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 10/11/2024 6:04 AM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 10/10/24 9:57 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 10/10/2024 8:39 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 10/10/24 6:19 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 10/10/2024 2:26 PM, wij wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 2024-10-10 at 17:05 +0000, Alan >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Mackenzie wrote:
    Mikko <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2024-10-09 19:34:34 +0000, Alan >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Mackenzie said: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Richard Damon <richard@damon- >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> family.org> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 10/8/24 8:49 AM, Andy Walker wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    As soon you find out that they repeat >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the same over
    and over, neither correcting their >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> substantial errors >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> nor improving their arguments you have >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> read enough.
    olcott deliberately lies (he knows what is >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> told, he
    choose to distort). olcott >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> When the behavior of DDD emulated by HHH is >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the measure
    then:
    But since it isn't, your whole argument >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> falls apart.
    Ah a breakthrough.
    And an admission that you are just working on >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a lie.
    Perhaps you are unaware of how valid deductive >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> inference
    works.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deductive_reasoning >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man You can >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> disagree that
    the premise to my reasoning is true. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> By changing my premise as the basis of your >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> rebuttal you
    commit the strawman error.
    So, how do you get from the DEFINITION of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Halting being a
    behavior of the actual machine, to something >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that can be
    talked about by a PARTIAL emulation with a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> different final
    behavior.
    My whole point in this thread is that it is >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> incorrect for you
    to say that my reasoning is invalid on the basis >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that you do
    not agree with one of my premises. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The issue isn't that your premise is "incorrect", >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> but it is
    INVALID,
    as it is based on the redefinition of fundamental >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> words.
    Premises cannot be invalid.
    Of course they can be invalid,
    It is a type mismatch error. Premises cannot be invalid. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So "af;kldsanflksadhtfawieohfnapio" is a valid premise? >>>>>>>>>>>>>> "valid" is a term-of-the-art of deductive logical
    inference. When the
    subject is deductive logical inference one cannot
    substitute the common
    meaning for the term-of-the-art meaning.
    This is a fallacy of equivocation error.
    So "af;kldsanflksadhtfawieohfnapio" is an invalid premise? >>>>>>>>>>>>>

    "invalid" referring to a premise within the terms-of-the-art >>>>>>>>>>>> of deductive logical inference is a type mismatch error use >>>>>>>>>>>> of the term.

    One could correctly say that a premise is untrue because >>>>>>>>>>>> it is gibberish. One can never correctly say that a premise >>>>>>>>>>>> is invalid within the terms-of-the-art.


    No, untrue isn't the normal term of art, except it tri- (or >>>>>>>>>>> other multi-) valued logics.


    Within ordinary deductive logic there seems to be
    no such thing as an invalid premise. Mathematical
    logic may do this differently.

    Nope, You just don't understand logic. Within Formal Logic
    there is a concept of an invalid premise, being a premise that >>>>>>>>> can not have a logical interpretation.

    Part of the problem is you don't seem to understand that words >>>>>>>>> DO have multiple meanings, and you need to use the right one >>>>>>>>> for the context.

    The meaning of invalid is basically the same: a thing is invalid >>>>>>>> if it is
    not what it is claimed or required to be. The differences in
    definitions
    are just adaptations to the details of different requirements. >>>>>>>>

    *Validity and Soundness*
    A deductive argument is said to be valid if and only if it takes >>>>>>> a form that makes it impossible for the premises to be true and
    the conclusion nevertheless to be false. Otherwise, a deductive
    argument is said to be invalid.

    A deductive argument is sound if and only if it is both valid,
    and all of its premises are actually true. Otherwise, a deductive >>>>>>> argument is unsound.

    https://iep.utm.edu/val-snd/


    And, your "premise" isn't actually a statement of fact,

    Before we can move forward on this we must be using terminology
    in the same way. You have to stop being so sloppy in your use of
    terminology.

    Within the analytical framework that I am using deductive
    logical inference, calling a premise invalid is incorrect.

    No, it is a term I used to apply to a premise that could not be used
    because it had no meaning in the system.

    You are attempting to create a definition of a term that is already
    defind.

    That is just INVALID.


    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.

    No, you keep on using ts terminology, since "Terminating" has the same
    meaning,

    It only seems that way to you because you cannot
    pay close enough attention. My new reply to Mikko
    fills in all of the details it took my two hours.


    You mean the one where you demonstrated that you don't understand what
    you are saying and just lie by equivocation?

    (See my reply to that message)

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From joes@21:1/5 to All on Wed Oct 16 06:32:40 2024
    Am Tue, 15 Oct 2024 22:52:00 -0500 schrieb olcott:
    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. A termination analyzer need
    not be a Turing computable function.
    It definitely does. An uncomputable analyser is useless.

    When HHH is an x86 emulation based termination analyzer then each DDD *correctly_emulated_by* any HHH that it calls never returns.
    Only because the nested HHH doesn't abort.

    --
    Am Sat, 20 Jul 2024 12:35:31 +0000 schrieb WM in sci.math:
    It is not guaranteed that n+1 exists for every n.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Mikko@21:1/5 to olcott on Wed Oct 16 11:05:49 2024
    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.

    --
    Mikko

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Mikko@21:1/5 to olcott on Wed Oct 16 11:23:00 2024
    On 2024-10-15 12:33:47 +0000, olcott said:

    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.

    While agreement with a definition is incorrect in some sense one
    can choose whether to accept the or reject the definition.

    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.

    Irrelevant.

    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.

    No, it applies only to the contributions of the author and of those who
    use the term without giving a different definition, and only in the
    discussion where it was presented.

    --
    Mikko

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Richard Damon@21:1/5 to olcott on Wed Oct 16 07:44:26 2024
    On 10/15/24 11:52 PM, olcott wrote:
    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.

    Strange, since any function that meets the requireemnt

    the function return values are identical for identical arguments (no
    variation with local static variables, non-local variables, mutable
    reference arguments or input streams, i.e., referential transparency),

    Is the equivalent of a Turing Machine.



    *According to the industry standard definitions that I stipulated*

    You can't stipulate that something is a standard.

    Since your defintions are NOT the "industry standard" for what you are
    doing with them, you are just proving that you are a liar.


    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.

    Nope, explnied previopusly and you can't refute it, so you are just
    making your lying assertion again.

    NO part of the industry standard definitions defines "correct emulation"
    to include partial emulation AND say that such emulation define final
    behaivor.

    Sorry, you are just proving your ignorance of what you claim to be an
    expert, thus that you are nothing but a liar.


    Each of the directly executed HHH emulator/analyzers that returns
    0 correctly reports the above *non_terminating _behavior* of its input.


    Nope.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From joes@21:1/5 to All on Wed Oct 16 17:24:26 2024
    Am Wed, 16 Oct 2024 12:13:12 -0500 schrieb olcott:
    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?
    Says the one with an if(Root).
    Apart from that, purity has nothing to do with computability.

    --
    Am Sat, 20 Jul 2024 12:35:31 +0000 schrieb WM in sci.math:
    It is not guaranteed that n+1 exists for every n.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From joes@21:1/5 to All on Wed Oct 16 18:09:14 2024
    Am Wed, 16 Oct 2024 12:42:43 -0500 schrieb olcott:
    On 10/16/2024 12:24 PM, joes wrote:
    Am Wed, 16 Oct 2024 12:13:12 -0500 schrieb olcott:
    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:

    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.
    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?
    Says the one with an if(Root).
    Apart from that, purity has nothing to do with computability.
    Quite a few experts agree that the purity of a function ensures its computability. It was like pulling teeth to get this out of them. It was
    like the computer science experts desperately wanted to remain totally ignorant of mapping computer science to software engineering.
    Decide_Halting() is not pure.

    --
    Am Sat, 20 Jul 2024 12:35:31 +0000 schrieb WM in sci.math:
    It is not guaranteed that n+1 exists for every n.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Richard Damon@21:1/5 to olcott on Wed Oct 16 20:06:00 2024
    On 10/16/24 1:42 PM, olcott wrote:
    On 10/16/2024 12:24 PM, joes wrote:
    Am Wed, 16 Oct 2024 12:13:12 -0500 schrieb olcott:
    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?
    Says the one with an if(Root).
    Apart from that, purity has nothing to do with computability.


    Quite a few experts agree that the purity of a function
    ensures its computability. It was like pulling teeth to
    get this out of them. It was like the computer science
    experts desperately wanted to remain totally ignorant
    of mapping computer science to software engineering.


    Yes, purity will ensure that a function is a computation (not
    computability, you don't seem to understand the difference).

    Being a computation doesn't mean the function is correct.

    You HHH and family are NOT "pure functions" and do so in a way that
    makes them NOT EQUivALENT to a Turing Machine.

    Your HHH / DDD is also not a properly split decider / input pair due to
    your intermingling of address space, as shown by your thought that the repesentation of DDD doesn't need to include the code for HHH because it
    is there.

    That means the representation of DDD that you use is NOT a correct representaion of the program, which is what you base your equivocation
    logic on.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Richard Damon@21:1/5 to olcott on Wed Oct 16 20:37:23 2024
    On 10/16/24 8:19 PM, olcott wrote:
    On 10/16/2024 6:44 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
    On 10/15/24 11:52 PM, olcott wrote:
    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.

    Strange, since any function that meets the requireemnt

    the function return values are identical for identical arguments (no
    variation with local static variables, non-local variables, mutable
    reference arguments or input streams, i.e., referential transparency),

    Is the equivalent of a Turing Machine.



    *According to the industry standard definitions that I stipulated*

    You can't stipulate that something is a standard.


    A c function terminates when it reaches its "return"
    instruction. I stipulate this basic fact because you
    disagree with basic facts. When it is stipulated then
    your disagreement is necessarily incorrect.


    We don't disagree with that, just if a partial emulation (even if
    correct as far as it goes) shows that the function doesn't reach that
    return.

    The criteria is NOT the "emulation by the decider" reaching the return instruction, it is the BEHAIVOR of the function, which is its direct
    execution (or COMPLETE and correct emulation) that determines that, and
    the function is DEFINED to include the code of everything it calls.

    You have agreed that the directly executed DDD will return, thus you
    have agreed, by your above stipulation, and the required definition of
    behavior that HHH is just incorrect to say it doesn't.

    Sorry, you are just proving yourself to be nothing but a stupid
    pathological liar.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Richard Damon@21:1/5 to olcott on Thu Oct 17 07:09:18 2024
    On 10/16/24 8:57 PM, olcott wrote:
    On 10/16/2024 7:37 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
    On 10/16/24 8:19 PM, olcott wrote:
    On 10/16/2024 6:44 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
    On 10/15/24 11:52 PM, olcott wrote:
    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.

    Strange, since any function that meets the requireemnt

    the function return values are identical for identical arguments (no
    variation with local static variables, non-local variables, mutable
    reference arguments or input streams, i.e., referential transparency), >>>>
    Is the equivalent of a Turing Machine.



    *According to the industry standard definitions that I stipulated*

    You can't stipulate that something is a standard.


    A c function terminates when it reaches its "return"
    instruction. I stipulate this basic fact because you
    disagree with basic facts. When it is stipulated then
    your disagreement is necessarily incorrect.


    We don't disagree with that,

    Good.

    Then when HHH correctly emulates N steps of DDD you might
    also agree that this means that N steps of DDD were correctly
    emulated by HHH.


    Right, but just because N steps don't get to the return, doesn't mean
    that the input doesn't return.


    *AND*

    Since changing the code for HHH means that you get a different program/funcition DDD as far as behavior is concerned, you can't argue
    about the results of changing HHH to not abort saying anything about the behavior of the DDD that the original HHH was given, since the
    non-aborting one had a different input (or the input wasn't suitable for
    the problem).

    Thus, your trying to change the criteria from the actual Behavior of the program/function described by the input to what the emulation by HHH
    does is invalid, as HHH doesn't do a emulation that qualifies, as it
    only did a partial emulaiton.

    Thus, since the DDD that HHH was actually given will return, HHH can not
    be correct to say that its doesn't.

    The statement that you are actually showing, and using equivocation to
    try to make look like the needed behavior, is that HHH shows that it did
    not emulate its input to a final state.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Mikko@21:1/5 to olcott on Sat Oct 19 11:54:43 2024
    On 2024-10-16 17:14:55 +0000, olcott said:

    On 10/16/2024 3:23 AM, Mikko wrote:
    On 2024-10-15 12:33:47 +0000, olcott said:

    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.

    While agreement with a definition is incorrect in some sense one
    can choose whether to accept the or reject the definition.

    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.

    Irrelevant.

    Not at all. If reviewers are lying about my work
    that is libelous.

    As is if you lie about your reviewers.

    --
    Mikko

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Mikko@21:1/5 to olcott on Sat Oct 19 11:45:15 2024
    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.

    --
    Mikko

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Mikko@21:1/5 to olcott on Sat Oct 19 11:52:37 2024
    On 2024-10-17 00:19:15 +0000, olcott said:

    On 10/16/2024 6:44 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
    On 10/15/24 11:52 PM, olcott wrote:
    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.

    Strange, since any function that meets the requireemnt

    the function return values are identical for identical arguments (no
    variation with local static variables, non-local variables, mutable
    reference arguments or input streams, i.e., referential transparency),

    Is the equivalent of a Turing Machine.



    *According to the industry standard definitions that I stipulated*

    You can't stipulate that something is a standard.

    A c function terminates when it reaches its "return"
    instruction. I stipulate this basic fact because you
    disagree with basic facts. When it is stipulated then
    your disagreement is necessarily incorrect.

    It is not a fact. It is a definition that excludes from the meaning
    of "terminate" certain possibilities that could reasonably be called "termination".

    --
    Mikko

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Mikko@21:1/5 to olcott on Sat Oct 19 11:47:23 2024
    On 2024-10-16 17:42:43 +0000, olcott said:

    On 10/16/2024 12:24 PM, joes wrote:
    Am Wed, 16 Oct 2024 12:13:12 -0500 schrieb olcott:
    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?
    Says the one with an if(Root).
    Apart from that, purity has nothing to do with computability.


    Quite a few experts agree that the purity of a function
    ensures its computability. It was like pulling teeth to
    get this out of them.

    Depends on whom you accpets as an "expert". I wouldn't accept one who
    does not understand that there are pure functions that are known to
    be uncomputable.

    --
    Mikko

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Mikko@21:1/5 to Richard Damon on Sat Oct 19 12:01:02 2024
    On 2024-10-17 00:06:07 +0000, Richard Damon said:

    On 10/16/24 1:14 PM, olcott wrote:
    On 10/16/2024 3:23 AM, Mikko wrote:
    On 2024-10-15 12:33:47 +0000, olcott said:

    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.

    While agreement with a definition is incorrect in some sense one
    can choose whether to accept the or reject the definition.

    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.

    Irrelevant.

    Not at all. If reviewers are lying about my work
    that is libelous.

    Which means you need to actual prove that something is a lie, and not
    that you just disagree with it.

    At least where I live such proof is not needed. It is sufficient that
    the insulting statement is not proven.

    --
    Mikko

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Richard Damon@21:1/5 to olcott on Sat Oct 19 07:21:13 2024
    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.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Richard Damon@21:1/5 to olcott on Sat Oct 19 07:29:08 2024
    On 10/19/24 7:16 AM, olcott wrote:
    On 10/19/2024 3:52 AM, Mikko wrote:
    On 2024-10-17 00:19:15 +0000, olcott said:

    On 10/16/2024 6:44 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
    On 10/15/24 11:52 PM, olcott wrote:
    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.

    Strange, since any function that meets the requireemnt

    the function return values are identical for identical arguments (no
    variation with local static variables, non-local variables, mutable
    reference arguments or input streams, i.e., referential transparency), >>>>
    Is the equivalent of a Turing Machine.



    *According to the industry standard definitions that I stipulated*

    You can't stipulate that something is a standard.

    A c function terminates when it reaches its "return"
    instruction. I stipulate this basic fact because you
    disagree with basic facts. When it is stipulated then
    your disagreement is necessarily incorrect.

    It is not a fact. It is a definition that excludes from the meaning
    of "terminate" certain possibilities that could reasonably be called
    "termination".


    Halting in computer science corresponds maps to normal
    termination in software engineering. For C functions
    reaching the "return" instruction is the only kind of
    normal termination.


    Right, which only apply to the FINAL behavior of program/functions (the
    domain of discussion) whicn include all of the code that object uses.

    Thus, "DDD" includes the "HHH" that is calls, and thus its code, and
    chanings that makes it a different input.

    Thus your "Hypothtical HHH" that doesn't abort, to test if HHH needed to
    abort, must have as its input the DDD that called the original HHH, not
    the Hypothetical HHH.

    Your refusal to do that just proves you don't understand what you are
    talking about.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Mikko@21:1/5 to olcott on Sat Oct 19 14:54:05 2024
    On 2024-10-19 11:16:04 +0000, olcott said:

    On 10/19/2024 3:52 AM, Mikko wrote:
    On 2024-10-17 00:19:15 +0000, olcott said:

    On 10/16/2024 6:44 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
    On 10/15/24 11:52 PM, olcott wrote:
    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.

    Strange, since any function that meets the requireemnt

    the function return values are identical for identical arguments (no
    variation with local static variables, non-local variables, mutable
    reference arguments or input streams, i.e., referential transparency), >>>>
    Is the equivalent of a Turing Machine.



    *According to the industry standard definitions that I stipulated*

    You can't stipulate that something is a standard.

    A c function terminates when it reaches its "return"
    instruction. I stipulate this basic fact because you
    disagree with basic facts. When it is stipulated then
    your disagreement is necessarily incorrect.

    It is not a fact. It is a definition that excludes from the meaning
    of "terminate" certain possibilities that could reasonably be called
    "termination".


    Halting in computer science corresponds maps to normal
    termination in software engineering. For C functions
    reaching the "return" instruction is the only kind of
    normal termination.

    An abnormal termination is usually regarded as a termination.

    --
    Mikko

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Mikko@21:1/5 to olcott on Sat Oct 19 15:00:30 2024
    On 2024-10-19 11:17:38 +0000, olcott said:

    On 10/19/2024 3:54 AM, Mikko wrote:
    On 2024-10-16 17:14:55 +0000, olcott said:

    On 10/16/2024 3:23 AM, Mikko wrote:
    On 2024-10-15 12:33:47 +0000, olcott said:

    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.

    While agreement with a definition is incorrect in some sense one
    can choose whether to accept the or reject the definition.

    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.

    Irrelevant.

    Not at all. If reviewers are lying about my work
    that is libelous.

    As is if you lie about your reviewers.

    I never lie because I believe that this could
    result in eternal damnation.

    So you say. Would be more credible if you would sometimes show some
    honesty.

    --
    Mikko

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From joes@21:1/5 to All on Sat Oct 19 15:29:36 2024
    Am Sat, 19 Oct 2024 07:35:23 -0500 schrieb olcott:
    On 10/19/2024 7:00 AM, Mikko wrote:
    On 2024-10-19 11:17:38 +0000, olcott said:
    On 10/19/2024 3:54 AM, Mikko wrote:
    On 2024-10-16 17:14:55 +0000, olcott said:
    On 10/16/2024 3:23 AM, Mikko wrote:
    On 2024-10-15 12:33:47 +0000, olcott said:
    On 10/15/2024 3:54 AM, Mikko wrote:
    On 2024-10-14 16:05:20 +0000, olcott said:

    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.
    Irrelevant.
    Not at all. If reviewers are lying about my work that is libelous.
    This is not a court.
    As is if you lie about your reviewers.
    I never lie because I believe that this could result in eternal
    damnation.
    Never attribute to malice what is adequately explained by stupidity.
    So you say. Would be more credible if you would sometimes show some
    honesty.
    It seems to me that I am always honest and most of my reviewers mostly
    use the strawman deception in all of their rebuttals.
    Same here.

    --
    Am Sat, 20 Jul 2024 12:35:31 +0000 schrieb WM in sci.math:
    It is not guaranteed that n+1 exists for every n.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Richard Damon@21:1/5 to olcott on Sat Oct 19 17:45:59 2024
    On 10/19/24 7:32 AM, olcott wrote:
    On 10/19/2024 6:29 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
    On 10/19/24 7:16 AM, olcott wrote:
    On 10/19/2024 3:52 AM, Mikko wrote:
    On 2024-10-17 00:19:15 +0000, olcott said:

    On 10/16/2024 6:44 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
    On 10/15/24 11:52 PM, olcott wrote:
    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.

    Strange, since any function that meets the requireemnt

    the function return values are identical for identical arguments
    (no variation with local static variables, non-local variables,
    mutable reference arguments or input streams, i.e., referential
    transparency),

    Is the equivalent of a Turing Machine.



    *According to the industry standard definitions that I stipulated* >>>>>>
    You can't stipulate that something is a standard.

    A c function terminates when it reaches its "return"
    instruction. I stipulate this basic fact because you
    disagree with basic facts. When it is stipulated then
    your disagreement is necessarily incorrect.

    It is not a fact. It is a definition that excludes from the meaning
    of "terminate" certain possibilities that could reasonably be called
    "termination".


    Halting in computer science corresponds maps to normal
    termination in software engineering. For C functions
    reaching the "return" instruction is the only kind of
    normal termination.


    Right, which only apply to the FINAL behavior of program/functions
    (the domain of discussion) whicn include all of the code that object
    uses.


    When I say that HHH correctly emulates itself emulating DDD
    your only rebuttal is double-talk nonsense.


    No, I just need to point out that your definition are incorrect in the
    context you use them in.

    A "Correct Emulation" to determine final behavior must be complete.

    HHH's emulation is not conplete, and thus does not show final behavior,

    Thus, either you are lying that your meaning of "correct emulation" CAN
    be used to talk about final behavior, because you are using some other definition, or that your HHH doesn't do a correct emulation.

    When the equivocation is pointed out, you have just ducked and dodge,
    showing that you understand you equivocation, but are trying to avoid
    dealing with it as it kills your arguement.

    S0rry, you are just proving you are nothing but a pathological lying idiot.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)