XPost: comp.theory, comp.software-eng   
   From: user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid   
      
   On 1/16/26 8:46 AM, Richard Damon wrote:   
   > On 1/16/26 4:08 AM, dart200 wrote:   
   >> On 1/15/26 7:28 PM, Richard Damon wrote:   
   >>> On 1/15/26 7:23 AM, dart200 wrote:   
   >>>   
   >>>> bro stick a giant dildo up ur asshole u hypocritical fuckface...   
   >>>>   
   >>>> when i tried to suggest improvements to the computational model,   
   >>>> like RTMs, u then told me i *can't* do that because muh ct-thesis,   
   >>>> and here u are crying about how no superior method has been found as   
   >>>> if u'd ever even tried to look past the ct-thesis...   
   >>>   
   >>> No, you didn't suggest improvements to the model, you just showed you   
   >>> don't knoww what that means.   
   >>>   
   >>> You don't get to change what a "computation" is, that isn't part of   
   >>> the "model".   
   >>   
   >> you honestly could have just said that cause the rest of this is just   
   >> u repeating urself as if that makes it more correct   
   >>   
   >   
   > But I HAVE said it that simply, and you rejected it as you think you get   
   > to,   
      
   but repeating urself doesn't make it more true   
      
   >   
   >   
   >>>   
   >>> The model would be the format of the machine, and while your RTM   
   >>> might be a type of machine that could be thought of, they don't do   
   >>> COMPUTATIONS, as it violates the basic rules of what a compuation IS.   
   >>>   
   >>> Computations are specific algorithms acting on just the input data.   
   >>>   
   >>> A fundamental property needed to reach at least Turing Complete   
   >>> ability, is the ability to cascade algorithms.   
   >>>   
   >>> Your RTM break that capability, and thus become less than Turing   
   >>> Complete.   
   >>   
   >> i'm sorry, RTMs are literally just TMs with one added instruction that   
   >> dumps static meta-data + copies tape ... how have they *lost* power   
   >> with that??? clearly they can express anything that TMs can ...   
   >   
   > Which means you don't understand how "TM"s work, as they don't have that   
   > sort of "instructions".   
      
   fuck dude sorry "operation" is the term turing used, i added to the list   
   of possible operations with RTMs, my god dude...   
      
   see how fucking unhelpful u are???   
      
   >   
   >>   
   >>>   
   >>> And, any algorithm that actually USES their capability to detect if   
   >>> they have been nested will become incorrect as a decider, as a   
   >>> decider is a machine that computes a specific mapping of its input to   
   >>> its output, and if that result changes in the submachine, only one of   
   >>> the answers it gives (as a stand-alone, or as the sub-machine) can be   
   >>> right, so you just show that it gave a wrong answer.   
   >>   
   >> u have proof that doesn't work yet you keep asserting this is the "one   
   >> true way". seems like u just enjoy shooting urself in the foot, with   
   >> the only actual rational way being it's just the "one true way"   
   >   
   > IT IS DEFINITION. Something you don't seem to understand.   
   >   
   > "Computation" is NOT defined by what some machine does, that is   
   > algorithms and results. "Computation" is the mapping generated by it,   
   > which MUST be a specific mapping of input to output.   
      
   no one has defined "computation" well enough to prove that turing   
   machines can compute them all,   
      
   that's why it's the ct-thesis dude, not ct-law,   
      
   ur just affirming the consequent without proof.   
      
   add that to list of the growing fallacies i've pointed out in ur recent   
   arguments, which i'm sure ur not actually tracking, as that would be far   
   more honesty than u are capable of putting out.   
      
   >   
   >>   
   >>>   
   >>> This is sort of like the problem with a RASP machine architecture,   
   >>> sub- machines on such a platform are not necessarily computations, if   
   >>> they use the machines capability to pass information not allowed by   
   >>> the rules of a computation. Your RTM similarly break that property.   
   >>>   
   >>> Remember, Computations are NOT just what some model of processing   
   >>> produce, but specifically is defined based on producing a specific   
   >>> mapping of input to output, so if (even as a sub-machine) a specific   
   >>> input might produce different output, your architecture is NOT doing   
   >>> a computation.   
   >>>   
   >>> And without that property, using what the machine could do, becomes a   
   >>> pretty worthless criteria, as you can't actually talk much about it.   
   >>   
   >> the output is still well-defined and deterministic at runtime,   
   >   
   > Not from the "input" to the piece of algorithm, as it includes "hidden"   
   > state from outside that input stored elsewhere in the machine.   
   >   
   >>   
   >> context-dependent computations are still computations. the fact TMs   
   >> don't capture them is an indication that the ct-thesis may be false   
   >>   
   >   
   > Nope. Not unless the "context" is made part of the "input", and if you   
   > do that, you find that since you are trying to make it so the caller   
   > can't just define that context, your system is less than turing complete.   
   >   
   > Your system break to property of building a computation by the   
   > concatination of sub-computations.   
      
   ...including a context-dependent sub-computation makes ur overall   
   computation context-dependent too ... if u dont want a context-dependent   
   computation don't include context-dependent sub-computation.   
      
   but in order to be complete and coherent, certain computations *must*   
   have context-awareness and are therefore context-dependent. these   
   computations aren't generally computable by TMs because TMs lack the   
   necessary mechanisms to grant context-awareness.   
      
   unless u can produce some actual proof of some computation that actually   
   breaks in context-dependence, rather than just listing things u assume   
   are true, i won't believe u know what ur talking about   
      
   --   
   arising us out of the computing dark ages,   
   please excuse my pseudo-pyscript,   
   ~ nick   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)