[CoolNard]

Your perspective is that of an antirealist. You are going against a fixed definition, which we base our lives on. What should be judged alive then? Are you claiming the same effects of "alive" on the non-living or stating "alive" in a different meaning? In that case, if I know my personality to be something living, and with accordance to all the dots, I can then physically devoid myself of being myself by 'writing it off' on the death note. My understanding is that all living things need energy to survive. There is nothing in this world able to cling onto life for centuries on end, with no energy source, or depleting ones for that matter. May I add some of the world's oldest buildings (still standing), such as those in Shibam, Yemen, far exceed the said period? ^_^

In the meantime, let's not bring breathing, living buildings into the picture yet. This point bewilders me:

The prey knows that it's alive.

How can a building which isn't alive even know anything? It's contradictory. In your scenario of Light and Naomi, nothing was mentioned at all pertaining to it. Why does the building have to recognize its own existence in the first place? Light could kill anyone, regardless of their mentality. A good example would probably be a patient in a mental hospital who believes and REALLY believes she is a piece of non-living, stagnant, dead wood named Plank. Hence, there could be a flaw in what you believe to be a coherent link to death by the death note.

The reason why a human can't kill a building is because point 1 is directly broken.

, meaning humans possess the complete ability to kill a building using the death note, in accordance to all your guidelines.
I beg to differ. Like you said:

the point remains that the possibility that it can be done is definitely non-zero.

The keyword is "possibility", which is associated with "if it can be done". The allegedly accomplished claim is thus, irrelevant.

It is humanity itself who has to accept the rules of the death note specifically set down. Also, it has nothing whatsoever to do with our known concepts for it is a book restricted to its own. On the contrary, the usage of the death note by humans is directly proportional to what the death note could be limited to. To top it, the death note HAS its limitations, which is due to its rules refering precisely to "human". In another words, even if it is used on an animal, say a dog, while complying to all your connections stated, it would never work. This information can be deduced from the very first episode of the series at 04:31: "The human whose name is written in this note shall die."
Online Video: Death Note 1 | Veoh Video Network
Cross-referencing here; I assure you it does not have anything to do with bad subbing. 04:40:
YouTube - Death note episode 1 part 1
I daresay it's obvious from the spoken Japanese language itself - "ningen", which actually means "human".

The primary characters of the series might have had a firm mentality inculcated by human society, however, it is best to note that mindsets can always be influenced. Chances are non-zero right? What was the harm in deviating their thinking from the norms of society? It was worth a definite shot, since they would have met the same fate either way, especially near (pun intended XD) the ending when last resorts had a certain attractive appeal. The fundamental explanation behind their actions lies in the essence of my above paragraph.

Therefore, the act of one human killing another with a deathnote, is the sum total of all possible actions allowed through the use of a deathnote and absolutely does depict an entirety in itself.

P.S. X___X Omg, you're a mathematician??! I hate mathematics >_<; That alone blanked my brains for half an hour O_O

**I love it when things get branched out XD Gives a clearer perception of everything from a highly structured organized manner.
Oren-san! You'd better get your ass back here this minute! XDXD**

And of course, with an ending note, Light is still undisputed! ^^ Anyone got a problem? You're going down! =P