XPost: comp.theory, comp.software-eng   
   From: user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid   
      
   On 1/18/26 12:56 PM, Richard Damon wrote:   
   > On 1/18/26 1:15 PM, dart200 wrote:   
   >> 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 ...   
   >   
   > No, it still handles that which it was developed for.   
      
   well it was developed to be a general theory of computing, and   
   apparently modern computing has transcended that theory ...   
      
   >   
   >>   
   >> 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???   
   >   
   > Why does it need to change?   
      
   why does the fundamental theory of computing need to encapsulate all   
   that is possible within computing??   
      
   idk, what's what i thot a fundamental theory is supposed to do, but i   
   guess you don't agree???   
      
   like, if the fundamental theory doesn't encapsulate everything done   
   within computing ... then idk why u think the halting problem should   
   apply to modern computing???   
      
   >   
   > If a new problem comes up, a new theory might be needed to handle it.   
      
   or maybe new techniques could rectify old problems ...   
      
   talk about a lack of curiosity. you confusing regurgitation of route   
   learning with actual intelligence, but i suppose that's all u need   
   working for a military contractor...   
      
   military intelligence is an oxymoron, remember?   
      
   >   
   >>   
   >>>   
   >>> 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   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)