XPost: comp.theory, comp.software-eng   
   From: user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid   
      
   On 1/17/26 4:33 AM, Richard Damon wrote:   
   > On 1/17/26 2:23 AM, dart200 wrote:   
   >> 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   
   >   
   > So, you admit you can't do it, or are just too stupid to understand what   
   > it means to DEFINE something.   
      
   take the TM definition and add REFLECT to it's set of possible operations.   
      
   regurgitation a TM definition to do that is not interesting to me, i'm   
   sure a gpt can help u out with that.   
      
   >   
   >>   
   >>>   
   >>> 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,   
   >   
   > I think  understand what you are trying to do. But your problem is you   
   > don't seem to understand it well enough to actually define it.   
   >   
   >>   
   >> maybe ur just too old for me teach any new tricks...   
   >   
   > I doubt that. I think it is more that you are too ignorant of the field   
   > to understand your issues.   
   >   
   >>   
   >>>   
   >>>>   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>> 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   
   >   
   > No, it isn't. WHich way is "Reflect"   
   >   
   > The closest that can means is flip the tape end to end.   
   >   
   > Your problem is you don't seem to understand the need to specify in   
   > precise detail what that instruction does.   
      
   i've described what REFLECT does several times to you by now, clearly u   
   aren't paying attention so idk why one more time would make a difference:   
      
   REFLECT will cause a bunch of machine meta-information to be written to   
   the tape, starting at the head, overwriting anything its path. at the   
   end of the operation, the head will still be in the same position as at   
   the start of the operation. the information written to tape will include   
   3 components:   
      
   - machine description   
   - current state transition   
   - current tape (the tape state before command runs)   
      
      
   >   
   >>   
   >>>   
   >>>>   
   >>>> 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   
   >   
   > So, And did you read the descriptions of what those operations were.   
   >   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)