The problem is that the same word is used for different things.
The comment you are responding to was correct in what "property" means in some settings.
The article itself says:
> A property is a universally quantified computation that must hold for all possible inputs.
But, as you say,
> but as those terms were adopted into less-than-academic contexts, the meanings have diluted.
And, in fact, this meaning has been diluted. And is simply wrong from the perspective of what it originally meant in math.
You are right that a CPU register is a property of the CPU. But the mathematical term for what the article is discussing is invariant, not property.
Feel free to call invariants properties; idgaf. But don't shit all over somebody by claiming to have the intellectual high ground, because there's always a higher ground. And... you're not standing on it.
My point was not that there exists some supreme truth about what words mean and that either you use words "correctly" or you're an idiot.
Yes, words have different meanings in different settings, but that's not the dilution I was referring to. It's absolutely fine that a word can be used differently in different places.
The "problem", such as it is, is that there are people who use terms from programming languages research to discuss programming languages and they use these terms inaccurately for their context, leading to a dilution in common understanding. For example, there is a definitive difference between a "function" and a "method", and so it is inaccurate to refer to functions generally as "methods". However, I see people gripe about interactions where these things are treated separately, and that is what I am addressing.
The parent comment to mine tried to offer some examples of such terms within the context of programming languages, so my corrections were constrained to that context. But your correction of my point is, I think, incorrect, because the meaning you are trying to use against me is one from a different context than the one we're all talking about.
There's no intellectual high ground here; my point was not to elevate myself above the parent comment. My point was to explain to them that they were, from the point of view of people like the author of the post (I assume), simply incorrect. There's nothing wrong with being wrong from time to time.
The comment you are responding to was correct in what "property" means in some settings.
The article itself says:
> A property is a universally quantified computation that must hold for all possible inputs.
But, as you say,
> but as those terms were adopted into less-than-academic contexts, the meanings have diluted.
And, in fact, this meaning has been diluted. And is simply wrong from the perspective of what it originally meant in math.
You are right that a CPU register is a property of the CPU. But the mathematical term for what the article is discussing is invariant, not property.
Feel free to call invariants properties; idgaf. But don't shit all over somebody by claiming to have the intellectual high ground, because there's always a higher ground. And... you're not standing on it.