Re: Defining a correct halting decidability decider

On 8/8/24 12:08 PM, olcott wrote:

On 8/8/2024 8:27 AM, Python wrote:

Le 08/08/2024 à 15:21, Peter Olcott a écrit :
...

*Semantic property of well-behaved is decided for input*
It the program well behaved thus halts?
else The program is not well behaved.

>
"well behaved" is not a property of programes or Turing Machines.
>

 *It is a Stipulative definition*
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stipulative_definition
 I can stipulate that an input has the semantic property
of has_not_ate_lunch_yet where has_not_ate_lunch_yet means
that the input halts and ~has_not_ate_lunch_yet means the
input cannot be determined to halt.

Nope. You can stipulate a definition, not a fact.
Yes, you could stipulate that the property "has_not_ate_lunch_yet" means that the input halts. You can not stipulate that a given input has that property, as either it does or it doesn't, and you stipulation doesn't affect that.
Sorry, you just don't understand what the term means.
There is a different meaning in legal context, where a stipulation is an agreement to a statement of fact claimed by your opponent, but that doesn't apply here.

 

"well behaved" is a property of human beings that YOU do not have.
>
You lie, you deceive, you abuse, you commit blasphemy in courts and
collect child pornography [this is documented].
>
As a bigot you believe that this can bring you to Hell.
>
Fortunately there is no God, no Hell, so you'll just vanished into
oblivion.
>
>
>