XPost: comp.theory, comp.software-eng   
   From: user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid   
      
   On 1/16/26 7:24 PM, Richard Damon wrote:   
   > On 1/16/26 7:43 PM, dart200 wrote:   
   >> On 1/16/26 3:21 PM, Richard Damon wrote:   
   >>> On 1/16/26 5:21 PM, dart200 wrote:   
   >>>> 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   
   >>>   
   >>> And your ignoring it doesn't make it false.   
   >>>   
   >>>>   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>> 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...   
   >>>   
   >>> But the only "operations" that a turing machine does is write a   
   >>> specified value to the tape, move the tape, and change state.   
   >>   
   >> yes RTMs are an extension of TMs, please do pay attention   
   >   
   > Nope, because they don't have the actual form of a TM.   
   >   
   > Their operations isn't by the basic principles of a TM.   
   >   
   > I think your problem is you don't actually know how a TM works, and thus   
   > this is meaningless.   
   >   
   > Please try to show how you would actually DEFINE in a system similar to   
   > how you would define a regular TM one of your RTMS.   
      
   RTMs can run TM machine_descriptions directly without modification   
   because REFLECT is just an operation that need not be used in the   
   computation   
      
   >   
   > Not just hand-waving arguement, and actually encoded RTM that looks like   
   > just an extension of some TM that has been encoded, and an explaination   
   > of how such a hardware platform could be constructed.   
   >   
   >>   
   >>>   
   >>>>   
   >>>> see how fucking unhelpful u are???   
   >>>   
   >>> So, how is your "operation" of the same class as what they do?   
   >>   
   >> cause it's just as mechanically feasible. mechanical feasibility to   
   >> self-evident just like with the other rules of turing machines.   
   >   
   > No, it is trying to put a hyper-cube into a flat plane drawing of a square.   
   >   
   > It seems you are just showing that you don't understand what you are   
   > actually talking about, but are trying to baffle people with your   
   > bullshit hopeing they won't notice your ignorance.   
      
   or u just don't understand what i mean by RTM,   
      
   maybe ur just too old for me teach any new tricks...   
      
   >   
   >>   
   >>>   
   >>> Try to specify the tuple that your "operation" is.   
   >>   
   >> idk what you mean by this, REFLECT is just another operation like   
   >> HEAD_LEFT, HEAD_RIGHT, or WRITE_, the. transition table has a   
   >> list of transition functions:   
   >   
   > So, it is a "tape motion". and how do you move the tape a "reflect"?   
      
   it's a tape operation like all the rest of the operations   
      
   >   
   >>   
   >> cur_state, head_symbol -> action, nxt_state   
   >>   
   >> and REFLECT goes into the action slot specifying the action that   
   >> should be taking to transition the tape to the next step.   
   >   
   > That isn't an "action" slot, in classic representation it is a binary   
   > field for tape motion direction.   
      
   richard, please do actually read turing's paper one of these days. i've   
   already posted at you his first machine description in text, and now   
   i'll post it in image form:   
      
   https://imgur.com/a/pzhHTMb   
      
   do let me know when ur done with retardedly quibbling over syntax so we   
   can actually get around to discussing semantics one of these days,   
      
   god i wish i had someone like turing to discuss this with, but so far ur   
   the only still responding to any depth.   
      
   >   
   >>   
   >>>   
   >>>>   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>> 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.   
   >>>   
   >>> No, the DEFINITION of a computation defines what it can be   
   >>> irrespective of the actual machinery used to perform it.   
   >>>   
   >>> It is, by definition, the algorithm computing of a given mapping.   
   >>>   
   >>> Said maps, are BY DEFINITION mappings from the "input" to the "output".   
   >>>   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)