Forums before death by AOL, social media and spammers... "We can't have nice things"
|    comp.ai.philosophy    |    Perhaps we should ask SkyNet about this    |    59,235 messages    |
[   << oldest   |   < older   |   list   |   newer >   |   newest >>   ]
|    Message 59,119 of 59,235    |
|    dart200 to Richard Damon    |
|    Re: is the ct-thesis cooked?    |
|    18 Jan 26 20:30:46    |
      XPost: comp.theory, comp.software-eng       From: user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid              On 1/18/26 4:28 PM, Richard Damon wrote:       > On 1/18/26 6:01 PM, dart200 wrote:       >> On 1/18/26 2:27 PM, Tristan Wibberley wrote:       >>> On 18/01/2026 21:50, dart200 wrote:       >>>> well it was developed to be a general theory of computing, and       >>>> apparently modern computing has transcended that theory       >>>       >>> In what ways is that apparent to you?       >>       >> modern computing utilized context-dependent functions, whereas turing       >> machine computations cannot be context-dependent.       >>       >> like a simple total stack trace cannot be generally implemented for       >> turing machines cause the top level runtime cannot be deduced by the       >> computation. there's no mechanism to do that.       >>       >>>       >>> Note "computing (the field, today)" does not refer to exactly the same       >>> relata as "computation" or "computing (the activity, then)".       >>>       >>> computing to       >>>       >>       >>       >       > Since Turing Machines don't HAVE a stack, that is just a red herring.              it's amazing how retared one can be even when technically correct              >       > And yes, there IS a mechanism, if the sub part needs to know that to do       > its computation, then you pass that as part of its input or state.       >       > It just means you need to be EXPLICIT about what you are doing.       >       > Explicit helps us know exactly what is happening.              that's a design choice, sure              >       > Most subroutines shouldn't care about their caller, and if they do, it       > should be explicit.              but if want to care generally, i can't do that because turing machines       don't have the mechanisms in place to ensure i have theoretically robust       access to whatever would be the stack trace equivalent              --       arising us out of the computing dark ages,       please excuse my pseudo-pyscript,       ~ nick              --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05        * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)    |
[   << oldest   |   < older   |   list   |   newer >   |   newest >>   ]
(c) 1994, bbs@darkrealms.ca