XPost: comp.theory, comp.software-eng   
   From: user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid   
      
   On 1/18/26 4:05 AM, Richard Damon wrote:   
   > On 1/18/26 1:05 AM, dart200 wrote:   
   >> 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???   
   >   
   > Why?   
   >   
   > Remember, the fundamental theory of Computing PREDATES the computer as   
   > you know it.   
      
   so ur saying it's outdated and needs updating in regards to new things   
   we do with computers that apparently turing machines as a model don't   
   have variations of ...   
      
   or what ... someone writes down a fundamental theory and then it just   
   sticks around like an unchanging law when u haven't even proven the   
   ct-thesis correct???   
      
   >   
   > All you are doing is showing your ignorance of what you are talking about.   
   >   
   >>   
   >>>   
   >>>>   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>> 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   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)