XPost: comp.theory, comp.software-eng   
   From: user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid   
      
   On 1/17/26 7:28 PM, Richard Damon wrote:   
   > On 1/17/26 10:14 PM, dart200 wrote:   
   >   
   > Good luck starving to death when your money runs out.   
      
   one can only hope for so much sometimes 🙏   
      
   >   
   >>   
   >>>   
   >>> I guess you don't understand the rules of logic.   
   >>   
   >> also not an argument   
   >   
   > Again, YOUR PROBLEM.   
   >   
   >   
   >>   
   >>>   
   >>>>   
   >>>> it's pretty crazy i can produce a machine (even if u haven't   
   >>>> understood it yet) that produces a consistent deterministic result   
   >>>> that is "not a computation".   
   >>>   
   >>> Because you get that result only by equivocating on your definitions.   
   >>>   
   >>> If the context is part of the inpt to make the output determistic   
   >>> from the input, then they fail to be usable as sub-computations as we   
   >>> can't control that context part of the input.   
   >>>   
   >>> When we look at just the controllable input for a sub-computation,   
   >>> the output is NOT a deterministic function of that inut.   
   >>>   
   >>>>   
   >>>> not sure what the fuck it's doing if it's not a computation   
   >>>   
   >>> Its using hidden inputs that the caller can't control.   
   >>   
   >> which we do all the time in normal programming, something which   
   >> apparently u think the tHeOrY oF CoMpUtInG fails to encapsulate   
   >   
   > Right, but that isn't about computations.   
   >   
   >>   
   >> pretty crazy we do a bunch "non-computating" in the normal act of   
   >> programming computers   
   >   
   > Why?   
   >   
   > As I have said, "Computatations" is NOT about how modern computers work.   
   >   
   > I guess you are just showing that you fundamentally don't understand the   
   > problem field you are betting your life on.   
      
   one would presume the fundamental theory of computing would be general   
   enough to encapsulate everything computed by real world computers, no???   
      
   >   
   >>   
   >>>   
   >>> Showing that you really don't understand what you are talking about.   
   >>>   
   >>>>   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>> It seems you just assume you are allowed to change the   
   >>>>>>> definition, perhaps because you never bothered to learn it.   
   >>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>>> 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.   
   >>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>> Which makes it not a computation.   
   >>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>> PERIOD.   
   >>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>> Fallacy of equivocation.   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>> i'm not shifting meaning dude. i'm directly claiming it's a   
   >>>>>> distinct type of computation that has been ignored by the theory   
   >>>>>> of computing thus far   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>> nice try tho   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>> But you don't actually do that, as you then claim to be in the same   
   >>>>> field to solve a problem specified in the field.   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>> As I said, if you want to try to define a new field based on a new   
   >>>>> definition of what a computation is, go ahead.   
   >>>>   
   >>>> it's not a new field, it's a mild extension of turing machines, with   
   >>>> one new operation.   
   >>>   
   >>> No, it is, as you are changing essential core defintions.   
   >>>   
   >>> That is like saying that spherical geometery is the same field as   
   >>> plane geometry, we just added a small extension.   
   >>   
   >> what the did the nut say when it was all grown up???   
   >>   
   >>>   
   >>>>   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>> You need to work out your formal definition.   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>> Show how the system actually works out.   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>> Show what it can show.   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>> And show why anyone would want to use it.   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>> 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.   
   >>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>> In other words, you require some computations to not be actual   
   >>>>>>> computations.   
   >>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>> 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   
   >>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>> The definition.   
   >>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>> A computation produces the well defined result based on the INPUT.   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>> context-dependent computation simply expands it's input to include   
   >>>>>> the entire computing context, not just the formal parameters. it's   
   >>>>>> still well defined and it grants us access to meta computation   
   >>>>>> that is not as expressible in TM computing.   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>> ct-thesis is cooked dude   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>> Nope, because you are just putting yourself outside the field it is   
   >>>>> written about.   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>> You can't change the definition of a computation, and still talk   
   >>>>> about things as if you were in the same system.   
   >>>>   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>> That just shows you are smoking some bad weed.   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)